Re: cleancache can lead to serious performance degradation

[Seth Jennings]

On 08/25/2011 11:56 AM, Dan Magenheimer wrote:

> Third, zcache is relatively new and can certainly benefit from
> the input of other developers.  The lzo1x compression in the kernel
> is fairly slow; Seth Jennings (cc'ed) is looking into alternate
> compression technologies.  Perhaps there is a better compression
> choice more suitable for older-slower processors, probably with a
> poorer compression ratio.  Further, zcache currently does compression
> and decompression with interrupts disabled, which may be a
> significant factor in the slowdowns you've observed.  This should
> be fixable.

This was something I've meaning to ask about.  Why are compression
and decompression done with interrupts disabled?  What would need
to change so that we don't have to disable interrupts?

<cut>
>>> I guess that possible workaround could be to implement some kind of
>>> compression throttling valve for cleancache/zcache:
>>>
>>> - if there's available CPU time (idle cycles or so), then compress
>>> (maybe even with low CPU scheduler priority);
> 
> Agreed, and this low-priority kernel thread ideally would also
> solve the "compress while irqs disabled" problem!

--
Seth
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/