On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 01:18:58PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (01/24/17 18:48), Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:32:44AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > On (01/25/17 10:29), Minchan Kim wrote: > > > [..] > > > > > the result as listed below: > > > > > > > > > > zero pattern_char pattern_short pattern_int pattern_long > > > > > total (unit) > > > > > 162989 14454 3534 23516 2769 > > > > > 3294399 (page) > > > > > > > > > > > > > so, int covers 93%. As considering non-zero dedup hit ratio is low, I > > > > think *int* is > > > > enough if memset is really fast. So, I'd like to go with 'int' if > > > > Sergey doesn't mind. > > > > > > yep, 4 byte pattern matching and memset() sounds like a good plan to me > > > > what? memset ONLY HANDLES BYTES. > > > > I pointed this out earlier, but you don't seem to be listening. Let me > > try it again. > > > > MEMSET ONLY HANDLES BYTES. > > dammit... how did that happen... > > > Matthew, you are absolute right. and, yes, I missed out your previous > mail, indeed. sorry. and thanks for "re-pointing" that out. > > > Minchan, zhouxianrong, I was completely wrong. we can't > do memset(). d'oh, I did not know it truncates 4 bytes to > one byte only (doesn't make too much sense to me).
Now, I read Matthew's comment and understood. Thanks. It means zhouxianrong's patch I sent recently is okay? Thanks.
