[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170426021452.GA673@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:14:52 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: js1304@...il.com
Cc: 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,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] zram: implement deduplication in zram
Hello,
On (04/26/17 09:52), js1304@...il.com wrote:
[..]
> ret = scnprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE,
> - "%8llu %8llu %8llu %8lu %8ld %8llu %8lu\n",
> + "%8llu %8llu %8llu %8lu %8ld %8llu %8lu %8llu %8llu\n",
> orig_size << PAGE_SHIFT,
> (u64)atomic64_read(&zram->stats.compr_data_size),
> mem_used << PAGE_SHIFT,
> zram->limit_pages << PAGE_SHIFT,
> max_used << PAGE_SHIFT,
> (u64)atomic64_read(&zram->stats.same_pages),
> - pool_stats.pages_compacted);
> + pool_stats.pages_compacted,
> + zram_dedup_dup_size(zram),
> + zram_dedup_meta_size(zram));
hm... should't we subtract zram_dedup_dup_size(zram) from
->stats.compr_data_size? we don't use extra memory for dedupped
pages. or don't inc ->stats.compr_data_size for dedupped pages?
for instance, same_page_write() does not inc ->stats.compr_data_size,
while successful zram_dedup_find() does (in __zram_bvec_write()).
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists