linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] zram: introduce per-device debug

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]

Message-ID: <20160513072006.GA21484@bbox>
Date:	Fri, 13 May 2016 16:20:06 +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>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zram: introduce per-device debug_stat sysfs node

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 04:05:53PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (05/13/16 15:58), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (05/13/16 15:23), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > [..]
> > > @@ -737,12 +737,12 @@ static int zram_bvec_write(struct zram *zram, struct bio_vec *bvec, u32 index,
> > >  		zcomp_strm_release(zram->comp, zstrm);
> > >  		zstrm = NULL;
> > >  
> > > -		atomic64_inc(&zram->stats.num_recompress);
> > > -
> > >  		handle = zs_malloc(meta->mem_pool, clen,
> > >  				GFP_NOIO | __GFP_HIGHMEM);
> > > -		if (handle)
> > > +		if (handle) {
> > > +			atomic64_inc(&zram->stats.num_recompress);
> > >  			goto compress_again;
> > > +		}
> > 
> > not like a real concern...
> > 
> > the main (and only) purpose of num_recompress is to match performance
> > slowdowns and failed fast write paths (when the first zs_malloc() fails).
> > this matching is depending on successful second zs_malloc(), but if it's
> > also unsuccessful we would only increase failed_writes; w/o increasing
> > the failed fast write counter, while we actually would have failed fast
> > write and extra zs_malloc() [unaccounted in this case]. yet it's probably
> > a bit unlikely to happen, but still. well, just saying.
> 
> here I assume that the biggest contributor to re-compress latency is
> enabled preemption after zcomp_strm_release() and this second zs_malloc().
> the compression itself of a PAGE_SIZE buffer should be fast enough. so IOW
> we would pass down the slow path, but would not account it.

biggest contributors are 1. direct reclaim by second zsmalloc call +
                         2. recompression overhead.

If zram start to support high comp ratio but slow speed algorithm like zlib
2 might be higher than 1 in the future so let's not ignore 2 overhead.

Although 2 is smaller, your patch just accounts only direct reclaim but my
suggestion can count both 1 and 2 so isn't it better?

I don't know why it's arguable here. :)

> 
> 	-ss
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@...ck.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@...ck.org"> email@...ck.org </a>