RE: [PATCH v2 0/3] staging: zcache: xcfmalloc support

[Dan Magenheimer]

> From: Dave Hansen [mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] staging: zcache: xcfmalloc support
> 
> On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 14:24 -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
> > How would you suggest that I measure xcfmalloc performance on a "very
> > large set of workloads".  I guess another form of that question is: How
> > did xvmalloc do this?
> 
> Well, it didn't have a competitor, so this probably wasn't done. :)
> 
> I'd like to see a microbenchmarky sort of thing.  Do a million (or 100
> million, whatever) allocations, and time it for both allocators doing
> the same thing.  You just need to do the *same* allocations for both.

One suggestion:  We already know xvmalloc sucks IF the workload has
poor compression for most pages.  We are looking to understand if xcfmalloc
is [very**N] bad when xvmalloc is good.  So please measure BIG-NUMBER
allocations where compression is known to be OK on average (which is,
I think, a large fraction of workloads), rather than workloads where
xvmalloc already sucks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/