Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: change virtual mapping way for compression pages

[Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>]

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 <daehojeong@google.com>
>>
>> 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 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
>> dd if=dummy of=/dev/zero bs=512k
>>
>> - w/o compression -
>> 1048576000 bytes (0.9 G) copied, 1.999384 s, 500 M/s
>> 1048576000 bytes (0.9 G) copied, 2.035988 s, 491 M/s
>> 1048576000 bytes (0.9 G) copied, 2.039457 s, 490 M/s
>>
>> - before patch -
>> 1048576000 bytes (0.9 G) copied, 9.146217 s, 109 M/s
>> 1048576000 bytes (0.9 G) copied, 9.997542 s, 100 M/s
>> 1048576000 bytes (0.9 G) copied, 10.109727 s, 99 M/s
>>
>> - after patch -
>> 1048576000 bytes (0.9 G) copied, 2.253441 s, 444 M/s
>> 1048576000 bytes (0.9 G) copied, 2.739764 s, 365 M/s
>> 1048576000 bytes (0.9 G) copied, 2.185649 s, 458 M/s
> 
> Indeed, vmap() approach has some impact on the whole
> workflow. But I don't think the gap is such significant,
> maybe it relates to unlocked cpufreq (and big little
> core difference if it's on some arm64 board).

Agreed,

I guess there should be other reason causing the large performance
gap, scheduling, frequency, or something else.

> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
> .
>