linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] zbud: allow up to PAGE

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20150923215726.GA17171@cerebellum.local.variantweb.net>
Date:	Wed, 23 Sep 2015 16:57:26 -0500
From:	Seth Jennings <sjennings@...iantweb.net>
To:	Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>
Cc:	Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] zbud: allow up to PAGE_SIZE allocations

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 09:54:02AM +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 5:18 AM, Seth Jennings <sjennings@...iantweb.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 02:17:33PM +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote:
> >> Currently zbud is only capable of allocating not more than
> >> PAGE_SIZE - ZHDR_SIZE_ALIGNED - CHUNK_SIZE. This is okay as
> >> long as only zswap is using it, but other users of zbud may
> >> (and likely will) want to allocate up to PAGE_SIZE. This patch
> >> addresses that by skipping the creation of zbud internal
> >> structure in the beginning of an allocated page (such pages are
> >> then called 'headless').
> >
> > I guess I'm having trouble with this.  If you store a PAGE_SIZE
> > allocation in zbud, then the zpage can only have one allocation as there
> > is no room for a buddy.  Sooooo... we have an allocator for that: the
> > page allocator.
> >
> > zbud doesn't support this by design because, if you are only storing one
> > allocation per page, you don't gain anything.
> >
> > This functionality creates many new edge cases for the code.
> >
> > What is this use case you envision?  I think we need to discuss
> > whether the use case exists and if it justifies the added complexity.
> 
> The use case is to use zram with zbud as allocator via the common
> zpool api. Sometimes determinism and better worst-case time are more
> important than high compression ratio.
> As far as I can see, I'm not the only one who wants this case
> supported in mainline.

Ok, I can see that having the allocator backends for zpool 
have the same set of constraints is nice.

I'll look at your latest patch.

Thanks,
Seth

> 
> > We are crossing a boundary into zsmalloc style complexity with storing
> > stuff in the struct page, something I really didn't want to do in zbud.
> 
> Well, the thing is we need PAGE_SIZE allocations supported to use zram
> with zbud. I can of course add the code handling this in zpool but I
> am quite sure doing that in zbud directly is a better idea. I'm very
> keen on keeping the complexity down as much as possible though.
> 
> > zbud is the simple one, zsmalloc is the complex one.  I'd hate to have
> > two complex ones :-/
> 
> Who am I to disagree :) Keeping zbud simple is my goal, too, but once
> again, I'd really like it to support PAGE_SIZE allocations. And if it
> doesn't, the whole zpool thing for it becomes useless, since there
> will hardly be any zbud users other than zswap.
> 
> ~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/