On 2020/8/11 19:31, Daeho Jeong wrote:
Plus, differently from your testbed, in my pixel device, there seems
to be much more contention in vmap() operation.
If it's not there, I agree that there might not be a big difference
between vmap() and vm_map_ram().
2020년 8월 11일 (화) 오후 8:29, Gao Xiang 님이
Plus, differently from your testbed, in my pixel device, there seems
to be much more contention in vmap() operation.
If it's not there, I agree that there might not be a big difference
between vmap() and vm_map_ram().
2020년 8월 11일 (화) 오후 8:29, Gao Xiang 님이 작성:
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at
On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 08:21:23PM +0900, Daeho Jeong wrote:
> Sure, I'll update the test condition as you said in the commit message.
> FYI, the test is done with 16kb chunk and Pixel 3 (arm64) device.
Yeah, anyway, it'd better to lock the freq and offline the little
cores in your test as well
Sure, I'll update the test condition as you said in the commit message.
FYI, the test is done with 16kb chunk and Pixel 3 (arm64) device.
Thanks,
2020년 8월 11일 (화) 오후 7:18, Gao Xiang 님이 작성:
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 06:33:26PM +0900, Daeho Jeong wrote:
> > Plus, when we use vmap(), vmap()
On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 06:33:26PM +0900, Daeho Jeong wrote:
> Plus, when we use vmap(), vmap() normally executes in a short time
> like vm_map_ram().
> But, sometimes, it has a very long delay.
>
> 2020??? 8??? 11??? (???) ?? 6:28, Daeho Jeong ??
> ??:
> >
> > Actually, as you can
Plus, when we use vmap(), vmap() normally executes in a short time
like vm_map_ram().
But, sometimes, it has a very long delay.
2020년 8월 11일 (화) 오후 6:28, Daeho Jeong 님이 작성:
>
> Actually, as you can see, I use the whole zero data blocks in the test file.
> It can maximize the effect of changing
Actually, as you can see, I use the whole zero data blocks in the test file.
It can maximize the effect of changing virtual mapping.
When I use normal files which can be compressed about 70% from the
original file,
The vm_map_ram() version is about 2x faster than vmap() version.
2020년 8월 11일 (화)
On 2020/8/11 15:15, Gao Xiang wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 12:37:53PM +0900, Daeho Jeong wrote:
From: Daeho Jeong
By profiling f2fs compression works, I've found vmap() callings are
bottlenecks of f2fs decompression path. Changing these with
vm_map_ram(), we can enhance f2fs decompression
On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 12:37:53PM +0900, Daeho Jeong wrote:
> From: Daeho Jeong
>
> By profiling f2fs compression works, I've found vmap() callings are
> bottlenecks of f2fs decompression path. Changing these with
> vm_map_ram(), we can enhance f2fs decompression speed pretty much.
>
>
From: Daeho Jeong
By profiling f2fs compression works, I've found vmap() callings are
bottlenecks of f2fs decompression path. Changing these with
vm_map_ram(), we can enhance f2fs decompression speed pretty much.
[Verification]
dd if=/dev/zero of=dummy bs=1m count=1000
echo 3 >
10 matches
Mail list logo
