Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:27:06 +0900 | From | Minchan Kim <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] zram: implement rw_page operation of zram |
| |
Hi karam,
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 04:04:14PM +0900, karam.lee@lge.com wrote: > From: "karam.lee" <karam.lee@lge.com> > > This patch implements rw_page operation for zram block device. > > I implemented the feature in zram and tested it. > Test bed was the G2, LG electronic mobile device, whtich has msm8974 > processor and 2GB memory. > With a memory allocation test program consuming memory, the system > generates swap. > And operating time of swap_write_page() was measured. > > -------------------------------------------------- > | | operating time | improvement | > | | (20 runs average) | | > -------------------------------------------------- > |with patch | 1061.15 us | +2.4% | > -------------------------------------------------- > |without patch| 1087.35 us | | > -------------------------------------------------- > > Each test(with paged_io,with BIO) result set shows normal distribution > and has equal variance. > I mean the two values are valid result to compare. > I can say operation with paged I/O(without BIO) is faster 2.4% with > confidence level 95%. > > Signed-off-by: karam.lee <karam.lee@lge.com> > --- > drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c > index 4565fdc..8bbd4f2 100644 > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c > @@ -810,8 +810,46 @@ static void zram_slot_free_notify(struct block_device *bdev, > atomic64_inc(&zram->stats.notify_free); > } > > +static int zram_rw_page(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector, > + struct page *page, int rw) > +{ > + int offset, ret; > + u32 index; > + struct zram *zram; > + struct bio_vec bv; > + > + zram = bdev->bd_disk->private_data; > + if (!valid_io_request(zram, sector, PAGE_SIZE)) { > + atomic64_inc(&zram->stats.invalid_io); > + ret = -EINVAL; > + goto out; > + } > + > + down_read(&zram->init_lock); > + if (unlikely(!init_done(zram))) { > + ret = -ENOMEM;
Why is it -ENOMEM? I think EIO is better like bio_io_error.
-- Kind regards, Minchan Kim
| |