linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] zram: use common zpool interface

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: <20191015020403.GA1336@jagdpanzerIV>
Date:   Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:04:03 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To:     Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Henry Burns <henrywolfeburns@...il.com>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@...nk.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] zram: use common zpool interface

On (10/14/19 13:52), Vitaly Wool wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 12:49 PM Sergey Senozhatsky
> <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On (10/10/19 23:20), Vitaly Wool wrote:
> > [..]
> > >  static const char *default_compressor = "lzo-rle";
> > >
> > > +#define BACKEND_PAR_BUF_SIZE 32
> > > +static char backend_par_buf[BACKEND_PAR_BUF_SIZE];
> >
> > We can have multiple zram devices (zram0 .. zramN), I guess it
> > would make sense not to force all devices to use one particular
> > allocator (e.g. see comp_algorithm_store()).
> >
> > If the motivation for the patch set is that zsmalloc does not
> > perform equally well for various data access patterns, then the
> > same is true for any other allocator. Thus, I think, we need to
> > have a per-device 'allocator' knob.
> 
> We were thinking here in per-SoC terms basically, but this is a valid
> point. Since zram has a well-established sysfs per-device
> configuration interface, backend choice better be moved there. Agree?

Yup, sysfs per-device knob.

// Given that Minchan is OK with the patch set.

	-ss