From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ig0-f169.google.com (mail-ig0-f169.google.com [209.85.213.169]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AFB36B0038 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 01:30:33 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ig0-f169.google.com with SMTP id z20so597401igj.0 for ; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 22:30:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org (mail.linuxfoundation.org. [140.211.169.12]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hv9si6141740igb.0.2015.01.08.22.30.31 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 08 Jan 2015 22:30:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 22:30:24 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: mm performance with zram Message-Id: <20150108223024.da818218.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Luigi Semenzato Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 14:49:45 -0800 Luigi Semenzato wrote: > I am taking a closer look at the performance of the Linux MM in the > context of heavy zram usage. The bottom line is that there is > surprisingly high overhead (35-40%) from MM code other than > compression/decompression routines. Those images hurt my eyes. Did you work out where the time is being spent? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org