On 09/07/2011 09:09 AM, Seth Jennings wrote: > > I did some quick tests with "time" using the same program and the > timings are very close (3 run average, little deviation): > > xvmalloc: > zero filled 0m0.852s > text (75%) 0m14.415s > > xcfmalloc: > zero filled 0m0.870s > text (75%) 0m15.089s > > I suspect that the small decrease in throughput is due to the > extra memcpy in xcfmalloc. However, these timing, more than > anything, demonstrate that the throughput is GREATLY effected > by the compressibility of the data. This is not correct. I found out today that the reason text compressed so much more slowly is because my test program was inefficiently filling text filled pages. With my corrected test program: xvmalloc: zero filled 0m0.751s text (75%) 0m2.273s It is still slower on less compressible data but not to the degree previously stated. I don't have the xcfmalloc numbers yet, but I expect they are almost the same. -- Seth -- 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=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>