[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170426060428.GE673@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:04:28 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] zram: implement deduplication in zram
On (04/26/17 14:59), Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:37:18AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (04/26/17 09:52), js1304@...il.com wrote:
> > [..]
> > > struct zram_entry {
> > > + struct rb_node rb_node;
> > > + u32 len;
> > > + u32 checksum;
> > > + unsigned long refcount;
> >
> > use refcount_t? what do you think?
>
> We don't need atomic operation for refcount but refcount_t does.
> API of refcount_t provides additional guarantee that refcount will not
> overflow but I'm not sure that this overhead is needed here.
refcount_t has some additional debugging features which probably
could be helpful one day, but not necessarily needed in current
zram_dedup implementation, agree. asked just in case.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists