| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
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>
|
|
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>
|
|
Do not perform direct LZO compress/decompress calls, initialise
and use zcomp LZO backend (single compression stream) instead.
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: resolve conflicts with zram-delete-zram_init_device-fix.patch]
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>
|
|
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>
|
