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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 09:16:35 +0900 From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com> Cc: Gopi Sai Teja <gopi.st@...sung.com>, ngupta@...are.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, v.narang@...sung.com, pankaj.m@...sung.com, a.sahrawat@...sung.com, prakash.a@...sung.com, himanshu.sh@...sung.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] zram: better utilization of zram swap space Hi Gopi and Sergey, On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 05:45:10PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (12/07/17 13:52), Gopi Sai Teja wrote: > > If the length of the compressed page is greater than 75% of the PAGE_SIZE, > > then the page is stored uncompressed in zram space. Zram space utilization > > is improved if the threshold is 80%(5 compressed pages can be stored in > > 4 pages). > > > > If the compressed length is greater than 3068 and less than 3261, pages > > still can be stored in compressed form in zs_malloc class 3264. > > Currently these compressed pages belong to 4096 zs malloc class. > > so this makes sense. I had another idea awhile ago > > lkml.kernel.org/r/1456061274-20059-2-git-send-email-sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com > > in short, 3261 is good, but not as good as it possibly can be. for the > time being, our huge-class watermark starts at 3264. but this can > change. > > > a side note, I think we have sort of wrong API. zsmalloc knows better which > object is huge. and who knows, may be we will change the number of huge > classes someday or huge-class watermark, etc. so having "hey zsmalloc, is > this object huge or not" API seems to be better than ZRAM's enforcement > "hey zsmalloc, this object is huge". > > -ss I agree. zram shouldn't be aware of allocator internal. It would be better for zram to use *int zs_max_zpage_size(struct zs_pool *pool)* to set up max_zpage_size. Let's hide the allocator's detail to the exported function. Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists