On 09/07/2011 09:09 AM, Seth Jennings wrote:

I did some quick tests with "time" using the same program and the
timings are very close (3 run average, little deviation):

xvmalloc:
zero filled	0m0.852s
text (75%)	0m14.415s

xcfmalloc:
zero filled	0m0.870s
text (75%)	0m15.089s

I suspect that the small decrease in throughput is due to the
extra memcpy in xcfmalloc.  However, these timing, more than 
anything, demonstrate that the throughput is GREATLY effected
by the compressibility of the data.

This is not correct.  I found out today that the reason text
compressed so much more slowly is because my test program
was inefficiently filling text filled pages.

With my corrected test program:
xvmalloc:
zero filled	0m0.751s
text (75%)	0m2.273s

It is still slower on less compressible data but not to the
degree previously stated.

I don't have the xcfmalloc numbers yet, but I expect they are
almost the same.

--
Seth

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>