On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 04:43:35PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > Hello, > > On (04/27/16 16:29), Minchan Kim wrote: > [..] > > > the test: > > > > > > -- 4 GB x86_64 box > > > -- zram 3GB, lzo > > > -- mem-hogger pre-faults 3GB of pages before the fio test > > > -- fio test has been modified to have 11% compression ratio (to increase > > > the > > > chances of > > > re-compressions) > > > > Could you test concurrent mem hogger with fio rather than pre-fault before > > fio test > > in next submit? > > this test will not prove anything, unfortunately. I performed it; > and it's impossible to guarantee even remotely stable results. > mem-hogger process can spend on pre-fault from 41 to 81 seconds; > so I'm quite sceptical about the actual value of this test. > > > > considering buffer_compress_percentage=11, the box was under somewhat > > > heavy pressure. > > > > > > now, the results > > > > Yeb, Even, recompression case is fater than old but want to see more heavy > > memory > > pressure case and the ratio I mentioned above. > > I did quite heavy testing over the last 7 days, with numerous OOM kills > and OOM panics.
Okay, I think it's worth to merge enough and see the result. Please send formal patch which has recompression stat. ;-) Thanks.
