> From: Dave Hansen [mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] staging: zcache: xcfmalloc support > > On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 14:24 -0500, Seth Jennings wrote: > > How would you suggest that I measure xcfmalloc performance on a "very > > large set of workloads". I guess another form of that question is: How > > did xvmalloc do this? > > Well, it didn't have a competitor, so this probably wasn't done. :) > > I'd like to see a microbenchmarky sort of thing. Do a million (or 100 > million, whatever) allocations, and time it for both allocators doing > the same thing. You just need to do the *same* allocations for both. One suggestion: We already know xvmalloc sucks IF the workload has poor compression for most pages. We are looking to understand if xcfmalloc is [very**N] bad when xvmalloc is good. So please measure BIG-NUMBER allocations where compression is known to be OK on average (which is, I think, a large fraction of workloads), rather than workloads where xvmalloc already sucks. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href