[linux-mm-cc] Fwd: [RFC][PATCH 0/6] compcache: Compressed Caching
Nai Xia
nai.xia at gmail.com
Sun Apr 13 05:26:47 EDT 2008
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 6:41 AM, Anderson Briglia <anderson at briglia.net> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Nai Xia <nai.xia at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:04 AM, Nitin Gupta <nitingupta910 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation.org>
> > > Date: Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 8:17 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/6] compcache: Compressed Caching
> > > To: nitingupta910 at gmail.com
> > > Cc: linux-mm at kvack.org
> > >
> > > On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 01:29:58 +0530 Nitin Gupta <nitingupta910 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > For general desktop use, this is giving *significant* performance gain
> > > > under memory pressure. For now, it has been tested only on x86.
> > >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > The values of "*significant*" should be exhaustively documented in the
> > > patch changelogs. That is 100%-the-entire-whole-point of the patchset!
> > > Omitting that information tends to reduce the number of C's.
> > >
> > > </snip>
> > >
> > > <End>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So, I will require performance numbers to justify inclusion of compcache
> > > in mainline. We already have separate perf numbers for lzo(compressor) and
> > > tlsf(allocator) but none that shows that using compcache is good for
> > > perf under memory pressure.
> > >
> > > If anyone is willing to take up this task, you can refer this paper:
> > > http://ols.108.redhat.com/2007/Reprints/briglia-Reprint.pdf
> >
> > I'd like to help, and
> > 1. do you think the benchmark from memtest is enough convincing?
> > shall we introduce some additional tests?
>
> Additional tests should be great. I believe memtest is not enough. For
> embedded system some developers use Mibench[1] as benchmarking.
I've got the fillmem result. After that, I'll try to get the result of
some popular programs
(e.g. kernel compiling).
>
>
> > 2. I plan to use a x86 destop, is it ok? or does the Compressed Caching
> > focus mainly on embedded systems?
>
> Nitin, correct me if I'm wrong but this ccache version is focused on
> embedded systems, right? The version used on that paper[2] was focused
> on "swapless" devices, not on embedded systems. Tests should include
> embedded system scenario.
It's a pity that I do not own a Linux based embedded system. :(
>
> [1] http://www.eecs.umich.edu/mibench/
Thanks for the reference.
> [2] http://ols.108.redhat.com/2007/Reprints/briglia-Reprint.pdf
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > This paper shows benchmarks of previous implementation of memory compression.
> > > It will give good idea on what to measure.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Nitin
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > linux-mm-cc mailing list
> > > linux-mm-cc at lists.laptop.org
> > > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/linux-mm-cc
> > >
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Nai
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > linux-mm-cc mailing list
> > linux-mm-cc at lists.laptop.org
> > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/linux-mm-cc
> >
>
Best Regards,
Nai
More information about the linux-mm-cc
mailing list