lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Nov]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/5] zsmalloc: Consolidate zs_pool's migrate_lock and size_class's locks
    On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 01:31:14PM -0800, Nhat Pham wrote:
    > We have benchmarked the lock consolidation to see the performance effect of
    > this change on zram. First, we ran a synthetic FS workload on a server machine
    > with 36 cores (same machine for all runs), using this benchmark script:
    >
    > https://github.com/josefbacik/fs_mark
    >
    > using 32 threads, and cranking the pressure up to > 80% FS usage.
    >
    > Here is the result (unit is file/second):
    >
    > With lock consolidation (btrfs):
    > Average: 13520.2, Median: 13531.0, Stddev: 137.5961482019028
    >
    > Without lock consolidation (btrfs):
    > Average: 13487.2, Median: 13575.0, Stddev: 309.08283679298665
    >
    > With lock consolidation (ext4):
    > Average: 16824.4, Median: 16839.0, Stddev: 89.97388510006668
    >
    > Without lock consolidation (ext4)
    > Average: 16958.0, Median: 16986.0, Stddev: 194.7370021336469
    >
    > As you can see, we observe a 0.3% regression for btrfs, and a 0.9% regression
    > for ext4. This is a small, barely measurable difference in my opinion.
    >
    > For a more realistic scenario, we also tries building the kernel on zram.
    > Here is the time it takes (in seconds):
    >
    > With lock consolidation (btrfs):
    > real
    > Average: 319.6, Median: 320.0, Stddev: 0.8944271909999159
    > user
    > Average: 6894.2, Median: 6895.0, Stddev: 25.528415540334656
    > sys
    > Average: 521.4, Median: 522.0, Stddev: 1.51657508881031
    >
    > Without lock consolidation (btrfs):
    > real
    > Average: 319.8, Median: 320.0, Stddev: 0.8366600265340756
    > user
    > Average: 6896.6, Median: 6899.0, Stddev: 16.04057355583023
    > sys
    > Average: 520.6, Median: 521.0, Stddev: 1.140175425099138
    >
    > With lock consolidation (ext4):
    > real
    > Average: 320.0, Median: 319.0, Stddev: 1.4142135623730951
    > user
    > Average: 6896.8, Median: 6878.0, Stddev: 28.621670111997307
    > sys
    > Average: 521.2, Median: 521.0, Stddev: 1.7888543819998317
    >
    > Without lock consolidation (ext4)
    > real
    > Average: 319.6, Median: 319.0, Stddev: 0.8944271909999159
    > user
    > Average: 6886.2, Median: 6887.0, Stddev: 16.93221781102523
    > sys
    > Average: 520.4, Median: 520.0, Stddev: 1.140175425099138
    >
    > The difference is entirely within the noise of a typical run on zram. This
    > hardly justifies the complexity of maintaining both the pool lock and the class
    > lock. In fact, for writeback, we would need to introduce yet another lock to

    I am glad to make the zsmalloc lock scheme simpler without meaning
    regression since it introduced a lot mess. Please include the test
    result in description.

    Thanks for the testing, Nhat.

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2022-11-07 23:36    [W:4.668 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site