mirror of https://gitee.com/openkylin/linux.git
6 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
Sergey Senozhatsky
|
ce1ed9f98e |
zram: delete custom lzo/lz4
Remove lzo/lz4 backends, we use crypto API now. [sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com: zram-delete-custom-lzo-lz4-v3] Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160604024902.11778-6-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160531122017.2878-7-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> |
|
|
Sergey Senozhatsky
|
ebaf9ab56d |
zram: switch to crypto compress API
We don't have an idle zstreams list anymore and our write path now works
absolutely differently, preventing preemption during compression. This
removes possibilities of read paths preempting writes at wrong places
(which could badly affect the performance of both paths) and at the same
time opens the door for a move from custom LZO/LZ4 compression backends
implementation to a more generic one, using crypto compress API.
Joonsoo Kim [1] attempted to do this a while ago, but faced with the
need of introducing a new crypto API interface. The root cause was the
fact that crypto API compression algorithms require a compression stream
structure (in zram terminology) for both compression and decompression
ops, while in reality only several of compression algorithms really need
it. This resulted in a concept of context-less crypto API compression
backends [2]. Both write and read paths, though, would have been
executed with the preemption enabled, which in the worst case could have
resulted in a decreased worst-case performance, e.g. consider the
following case:
CPU0
zram_write()
spin_lock()
take the last idle stream
spin_unlock()
<< preempted >>
zram_read()
spin_lock()
no idle streams
spin_unlock()
schedule()
resuming zram_write compression()
but it took me some time to realize that, and it took even longer to
evolve zram and to make it ready for crypto API. The key turned out to be
-- drop the idle streams list entirely. Without the idle streams list we
are free to use compression algorithms that require compression stream for
decompression (read), because streams are now placed in per-cpu data and
each write path has to disable preemption for compression op, almost
completely eliminating the aforementioned case (technically, we still have
a small chance, because write path has a fast and a slow paths and the
slow path is executed with the preemption enabled; but the frequency of
failed fast path is too low).
TEST
====
- 4 CPUs, x86_64 system
- 3G zram, lzo
- fio tests: read, randread, write, randwrite, rw, randrw
test script [3] command:
ZRAM_SIZE=3G LOG_SUFFIX=XXXX FIO_LOOPS=5 ./zram-fio-test.sh
BASE PATCHED
jobs1
READ: 2527.2MB/s 2482.7MB/s
READ: 2102.7MB/s 2045.0MB/s
WRITE: 1284.3MB/s 1324.3MB/s
WRITE: 1080.7MB/s 1101.9MB/s
READ: 430125KB/s 437498KB/s
WRITE: 430538KB/s 437919KB/s
READ: 399593KB/s 403987KB/s
WRITE: 399910KB/s 404308KB/s
jobs2
READ: 8133.5MB/s 7854.8MB/s
READ: 7086.6MB/s 6912.8MB/s
WRITE: 3177.2MB/s 3298.3MB/s
WRITE: 2810.2MB/s 2871.4MB/s
READ: 1017.6MB/s 1023.4MB/s
WRITE: 1018.2MB/s 1023.1MB/s
READ: 977836KB/s 984205KB/s
WRITE: 979435KB/s 985814KB/s
jobs3
READ: 13557MB/s 13391MB/s
READ: 11876MB/s 11752MB/s
WRITE: 4641.5MB/s 4682.1MB/s
WRITE: 4164.9MB/s 4179.3MB/s
READ: 1453.8MB/s 1455.1MB/s
WRITE: 1455.1MB/s 1458.2MB/s
READ: 1387.7MB/s 1395.7MB/s
WRITE: 1386.1MB/s 1394.9MB/s
jobs4
READ: 20271MB/s 20078MB/s
READ: 18033MB/s 17928MB/s
WRITE: 6176.8MB/s 6180.5MB/s
WRITE: 5686.3MB/s 5705.3MB/s
READ: 2009.4MB/s 2006.7MB/s
WRITE: 2007.5MB/s 2004.9MB/s
READ: 1929.7MB/s 1935.6MB/s
WRITE: 1926.8MB/s 1932.6MB/s
jobs5
READ: 18823MB/s 19024MB/s
READ: 18968MB/s 19071MB/s
WRITE: 6191.6MB/s 6372.1MB/s
WRITE: 5818.7MB/s 5787.1MB/s
READ: 2011.7MB/s 1981.3MB/s
WRITE: 2011.4MB/s 1980.1MB/s
READ: 1949.3MB/s 1935.7MB/s
WRITE: 1940.4MB/s 1926.1MB/s
jobs6
READ: 21870MB/s 21715MB/s
READ: 19957MB/s 19879MB/s
WRITE: 6528.4MB/s 6537.6MB/s
WRITE: 6098.9MB/s 6073.6MB/s
READ: 2048.6MB/s 2049.9MB/s
WRITE: 2041.7MB/s 2042.9MB/s
READ: 2013.4MB/s 1990.4MB/s
WRITE: 2009.4MB/s 1986.5MB/s
jobs7
READ: 21359MB/s 21124MB/s
READ: 19746MB/s 19293MB/s
WRITE: 6660.4MB/s 6518.8MB/s
WRITE: 6211.6MB/s 6193.1MB/s
READ: 2089.7MB/s 2080.6MB/s
WRITE: 2085.8MB/s 2076.5MB/s
READ: 2041.2MB/s 2052.5MB/s
WRITE: 2037.5MB/s 2048.8MB/s
jobs8
READ: 20477MB/s 19974MB/s
READ: 18922MB/s 18576MB/s
WRITE: 6851.9MB/s 6788.3MB/s
WRITE: 6407.7MB/s 6347.5MB/s
READ: 2134.8MB/s 2136.1MB/s
WRITE: 2132.8MB/s 2134.4MB/s
READ: 2074.2MB/s 2069.6MB/s
WRITE: 2087.3MB/s 2082.4MB/s
jobs9
READ: 19797MB/s 19994MB/s
READ: 18806MB/s 18581MB/s
WRITE: 6878.7MB/s 6822.7MB/s
WRITE: 6456.8MB/s 6447.2MB/s
READ: 2141.1MB/s 2154.7MB/s
WRITE: 2144.4MB/s 2157.3MB/s
READ: 2084.1MB/s 2085.1MB/s
WRITE: 2091.5MB/s 2092.5MB/s
jobs10
READ: 19794MB/s 19784MB/s
READ: 18794MB/s 18745MB/s
WRITE: 6984.4MB/s 6676.3MB/s
WRITE: 6532.3MB/s 6342.7MB/s
READ: 2150.6MB/s 2155.4MB/s
WRITE: 2156.8MB/s 2161.5MB/s
READ: 2106.4MB/s 2095.6MB/s
WRITE: 2109.7MB/s 2098.4MB/s
BASE PATCHED
jobs1 perfstat
stalled-cycles-frontend 102,480,595,419 ( 41.53%) 114,508,864,804 ( 46.92%)
stalled-cycles-backend 51,941,417,832 ( 21.05%) 46,836,112,388 ( 19.19%)
instructions 283,612,054,215 ( 1.15) 283,918,134,959 ( 1.16)
branches 56,372,560,385 ( 724.923) 56,449,814,753 ( 733.766)
branch-misses 374,826,000 ( 0.66%) 326,935,859 ( 0.58%)
jobs2 perfstat
stalled-cycles-frontend 155,142,745,777 ( 40.99%) 164,170,979,198 ( 43.82%)
stalled-cycles-backend 70,813,866,387 ( 18.71%) 66,456,858,165 ( 17.74%)
instructions 463,436,648,173 ( 1.22) 464,221,890,191 ( 1.24)
branches 91,088,733,902 ( 760.088) 91,278,144,546 ( 769.133)
branch-misses 504,460,363 ( 0.55%) 394,033,842 ( 0.43%)
jobs3 perfstat
stalled-cycles-frontend 201,300,397,212 ( 39.84%) 223,969,902,257 ( 44.44%)
stalled-cycles-backend 87,712,593,974 ( 17.36%) 81,618,888,712 ( 16.19%)
instructions 642,869,545,023 ( 1.27) 644,677,354,132 ( 1.28)
branches 125,724,560,594 ( 690.682) 126,133,159,521 ( 694.542)
branch-misses 527,941,798 ( 0.42%) 444,782,220 ( 0.35%)
jobs4 perfstat
stalled-cycles-frontend 246,701,197,429 ( 38.12%) 280,076,030,886 ( 43.29%)
stalled-cycles-backend 119,050,341,112 ( 18.40%) 110,955,641,671 ( 17.15%)
instructions 822,716,962,127 ( 1.27) 825,536,969,320 ( 1.28)
branches 160,590,028,545 ( 688.614) 161,152,996,915 ( 691.068)
branch-misses 650,295,287 ( 0.40%) 550,229,113 ( 0.34%)
jobs5 perfstat
stalled-cycles-frontend 298,958,462,516 ( 38.30%) 344,852,200,358 ( 44.16%)
stalled-cycles-backend 137,558,742,122 ( 17.62%) 129,465,067,102 ( 16.58%)
instructions 1,005,714,688,752 ( 1.29) 1,007,657,999,432 ( 1.29)
branches 195,988,773,962 ( 697.730) 196,446,873,984 ( 700.319)
branch-misses 695,818,940 ( 0.36%) 624,823,263 ( 0.32%)
jobs6 perfstat
stalled-cycles-frontend 334,497,602,856 ( 36.71%) 387,590,419,779 ( 42.38%)
stalled-cycles-backend 163,539,365,335 ( 17.95%) 152,640,193,639 ( 16.69%)
instructions 1,184,738,177,851 ( 1.30) 1,187,396,281,677 ( 1.30)
branches 230,592,915,640 ( 702.902) 231,253,802,882 ( 702.356)
branch-misses 747,934,786 ( 0.32%) 643,902,424 ( 0.28%)
jobs7 perfstat
stalled-cycles-frontend 396,724,684,187 ( 37.71%) 460,705,858,952 ( 43.84%)
stalled-cycles-backend 188,096,616,496 ( 17.88%) 175,785,787,036 ( 16.73%)
instructions 1,364,041,136,608 ( 1.30) 1,366,689,075,112 ( 1.30)
branches 265,253,096,936 ( 700.078) 265,890,524,883 ( 702.839)
branch-misses 784,991,589 ( 0.30%) 729,196,689 ( 0.27%)
jobs8 perfstat
stalled-cycles-frontend 440,248,299,870 ( 36.92%) 509,554,793,816 ( 42.46%)
stalled-cycles-backend 222,575,930,616 ( 18.67%) 213,401,248,432 ( 17.78%)
instructions 1,542,262,045,114 ( 1.29) 1,545,233,932,257 ( 1.29)
branches 299,775,178,439 ( 697.666) 300,528,458,505 ( 694.769)
branch-misses 847,496,084 ( 0.28%) 748,794,308 ( 0.25%)
jobs9 perfstat
stalled-cycles-frontend 506,269,882,480 ( 37.86%) 592,798,032,820 ( 44.43%)
stalled-cycles-backend 253,192,498,861 ( 18.93%) 233,727,666,185 ( 17.52%)
instructions 1,721,985,080,913 ( 1.29) 1,724,666,236,005 ( 1.29)
branches 334,517,360,255 ( 694.134) 335,199,758,164 ( 697.131)
branch-misses 873,496,730 ( 0.26%) 815,379,236 ( 0.24%)
jobs10 perfstat
stalled-cycles-frontend 549,063,363,749 ( 37.18%) 651,302,376,662 ( 43.61%)
stalled-cycles-backend 281,680,986,810 ( 19.07%) 277,005,235,582 ( 18.55%)
instructions 1,901,859,271,180 ( 1.29) 1,906,311,064,230 ( 1.28)
branches 369,398,536,153 ( 694.004) 370,527,696,358 ( 688.409)
branch-misses 967,929,335 ( 0.26%) 890,125,056 ( 0.24%)
BASE PATCHED
seconds elapsed 79.421641008 78.735285546
seconds elapsed 61.471246133 60.869085949
seconds elapsed 62.317058173 62.224188495
seconds elapsed 60.030739363 60.081102518
seconds elapsed 74.070398362 74.317582865
seconds elapsed 84.985953007 85.414364176
seconds elapsed 97.724553255 98.173311344
seconds elapsed 109.488066758 110.268399318
seconds elapsed 122.768189405 122.967164498
seconds elapsed 135.130035105 136.934770801
On my other system (8 x86_64 CPUs, short version of test results):
BASE PATCHED
seconds elapsed 19.518065994 19.806320662
seconds elapsed 15.172772749 15.594718291
seconds elapsed 13.820925970 13.821708564
seconds elapsed 13.293097816 14.585206405
seconds elapsed 16.207284118 16.064431606
seconds elapsed 17.958376158 17.771825767
seconds elapsed 19.478009164 19.602961508
seconds elapsed 21.347152811 21.352318709
seconds elapsed 24.478121126 24.171088735
seconds elapsed 26.865057442 26.767327618
So performance-wise the numbers are quite similar.
Also update zcomp interface to be more aligned with the crypto API.
[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=144480832108927&w=2
[2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=145379613507518&w=2
[3] https://github.com/sergey-senozhatsky/zram-perf-test
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160531122017.2878-3-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Suggested-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Suggested-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
|
Marcin Jabrzyk
|
9e65bf68a8 |
zram: remove obsolete ZRAM_DEBUG option
This config option doesn't provide any usage for zram. Signed-off-by: Marcin Jabrzyk <m.jabrzyk@samsung.com> Acked-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> Cc: Nitin Gupta <ngupta@vflare.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> |
|
|
Sergey Senozhatsky
|
6e76668e41 |
zram: add lz4 algorithm backend
Introduce LZ4 compression backend and make it available for selection.
LZ4 support is optional and requires user to set ZRAM_LZ4_COMPRESS config
option. The default compression backend is LZO.
TEST
(x86_64, core i5, 2 cores + 2 hyperthreading, zram disk size 1G,
ext4 file system, 3 compression streams)
iozone -t 3 -R -r 16K -s 60M -I +Z
Test LZO LZ4
----------------------------------------------
Initial write 1642744.62 1317005.09
Rewrite 2498980.88 1800645.16
Read 3957026.38 5877043.75
Re-read 3950997.38 5861847.00
Reverse Read 2937114.56 5047384.00
Stride read 2948163.19 4929587.38
Random read 3292692.69 4880793.62
Mixed workload 1545602.62 3502940.38
Random write 2448039.75 1758786.25
Pwrite 1670051.03 1338329.69
Pread 2530682.00 5097177.62
Fwrite 3232085.62 3275942.56
Fread 6306880.25 6645271.12
So on my system LZ4 is slower in write-only tests, while it performs
better in read-only and mixed (reads + writes) tests.
Official LZ4 benchmarks available here http://code.google.com/p/lz4/
(linux kernel uses revision r90).
Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc: Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@redhat.com>
Cc: Nitin Gupta <ngupta@vflare.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
|
|
|
Minchan Kim
|
49061236a9 |
zram: remove old private project comment
Remove the old private compcache project address so upcoming patches should be sent to LKML because we Linux kernel community will take care. Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> Cc: Nitin Gupta <ngupta@vflare.org> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> |
|
|
Minchan Kim
|
cd67e10ac6 |
zram: promote zram from staging
Zram has lived in staging for a LONG LONG time and have been fixed/improved by many contributors so code is clean and stable now. Of course, there are lots of product using zram in real practice. The major TV companys have used zram as swap since two years ago and recently our production team released android smart phone with zram which is used as swap, too and recently Android Kitkat start to use zram for small memory smart phone. And there was a report Google released their ChromeOS with zram, too and cyanogenmod have been used zram long time ago. And I heard some disto have used zram block device for tmpfs. In addition, I saw many report from many other peoples. For example, Lubuntu start to use it. The benefit of zram is very clear. With my experience, one of the benefit was to remove jitter of video application with backgroud memory pressure. It would be effect of efficient memory usage by compression but more issue is whether swap is there or not in the system. Recent mobile platforms have used JAVA so there are many anonymous pages. But embedded system normally are reluctant to use eMMC or SDCard as swap because there is wear-leveling and latency issues so if we do not use swap, it means we can't reclaim anoymous pages and at last, we could encounter OOM kill. :( Although we have real storage as swap, it was a problem, too. Because it sometime ends up making system very unresponsible caused by slow swap storage performance. Quote from Luigi on Google "Since Chrome OS was mentioned: the main reason why we don't use swap to a disk (rotating or SSD) is because it doesn't degrade gracefully and leads to a bad interactive experience. Generally we prefer to manage RAM at a higher level, by transparently killing and restarting processes. But we noticed that zram is fast enough to be competitive with the latter, and it lets us make more efficient use of the available RAM. " and he announced. http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mm/msg57717.html Other uses case is to use zram for block device. Zram is block device so anyone can format the block device and mount on it so some guys on the internet start zram as /var/tmp. http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-838198-start-0.html Let's promote zram and enhance/maintain it instead of removing. Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> Reviewed-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> Acked-by: Nitin Gupta <ngupta@vflare.org> Acked-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org> Cc: Bob Liu <bob.liu@oracle.com> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> Cc: Luigi Semenzato <semenzato@google.com> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Cc: Seth Jennings <sjenning@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> |