linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: extend zero pages to same element pages for zram

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 25 Jan 2017 13:51:37 +0900
From:   Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
CC:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        zhouxianrong <zhouxianrong@...wei.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>, <ngupta@...are.org>,
        <Mi.Sophia.Wang@...wei.com>, <zhouxiyu@...wei.com>,
        <weidu.du@...wei.com>, <zhangshiming5@...wei.com>,
        <won.ho.park@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: extend zero pages to same element pages for zram

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.