linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] allow zram to use zbud as underlying allocator

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:	Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:12:22 +0200
From:	Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>
To:	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:	minchan@...nel.org, sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com,
	ddstreet@...e.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] allow zram to use zbud as underlying allocator

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> wrote:
>
> On 09/14/2015 03:49 PM, Vitaly Wool wrote:
>>
>> While using ZRAM on a small RAM footprint devices, together with
>> KSM,
>> I ran into several occasions when moving pages from compressed swap back
>> into the "normal" part of RAM caused significant latencies in system
>
>
> I'm sure Minchan will want to hear the details of that :)
>
>> operation. By using zbud I lose in compression ratio but gain in
>> determinism, lower latencies and lower fragmentation, so in the coming
>
>
> I doubt the "lower fragmentation" part given what I've read about the design of zbud and zsmalloc?

As it turns out, I see more cases of compaction kicking in and
significantly more compact_stalls with zsmalloc.

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