[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160222023432.GC27829@bbox>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 11:34:32 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
CC: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 3/3] mm/zsmalloc: increase ZS_MAX_PAGES_PER_ZSPAGE
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:01:13AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (02/22/16 10:34), Minchan Kim wrote:
> [..]
> > > > I tempted it several times with same reason you pointed out.
> > > > But my worry was that if we increase ZS_MAX_ZSPAGE_ORDER, zram can
> > > > consume more memory because we need several pages chain to populate
> > > > just a object. Even, at that time, we didn't have compaction scheme
> > > > so fragmentation of object in zspage is huge pain to waste memory.
> > >
> > > well, the thing is -- we end up requesting less pages after all, so
> > > zsmalloc has better chances to survive. for example, gcc5 compilation test
> >
> > Indeed. I saw your test result.
>
>
> [..]
> > > Total 129 489 1627756 1618193 850147
> > >
> > >
> > > that's 891703 - 850147 = 41556 less pages. or 162MB less memory used.
> > > 41556 less pages means that zsmalloc had 41556 less chances to fail.
> >
> >
> > Let's think swap-case which is more important for zram now. As you know,
> > most of usecase are swap in embedded world.
> > Do we really need 16 pages allocator for just less PAGE_SIZE objet
> > at the moment which is really heavy memory pressure?
>
> I'll take a look at dynamic class page addition.
Thanks, Sergey.
Just a note:
I am preparing zsmalloc migration now and almost done so I hope
I can send it within two weeks. In there, I changed a lot of
things in zsmalloc, page chaining, struct page fields usecases
and locking scheme and so on. The zsmalloc fragment/migration
is really painful now so we should solve it first so I hope
you help to review that and let's go further dynamic chaining
after that, please. :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists