[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YM0YB6p2i346Zzhz@google.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 15:02:47 -0700
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To: Huangzhaoyang <huangzhaoyang@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: zram: amend SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT on zspage_cachep
On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 03:28:17PM +0800, Huangzhaoyang wrote:
> From: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>
>
> Zspage_cachep is found be merged with other kmem cache during test, which
> is not good for debug things(zs_pool->zspage_cachep present to be another
> kmem cache in memory dumpfile). It is also neccessary to do so as shrinker has
It's not a only problem of zsmalloc because slab want to minimize
fragmentation so try to merge several objects if it's allowed.
So I don't think it's particular problem of zsmalloc.
I guess slub has some option maybe "nomerge" if you want it.
> been registered for zspage. Amending this flag can help kernel to calculate
> SLAB_RECLAIMBLE correctly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>
> ---
> mm/zsmalloc.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/zsmalloc.c b/mm/zsmalloc.c
> index 19b563b..0b0addd 100644
> --- a/mm/zsmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/zsmalloc.c
> @@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ static int create_cache(struct zs_pool *pool)
> return 1;
>
> pool->zspage_cachep = kmem_cache_create("zspage", sizeof(struct zspage),
> - 0, 0, NULL);
> + 0, SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT, NULL);
How does zspage become SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT?
I took the flag as "cacheable" object. IOW, when the shrinker
ask to reclaim the object, it should reclaim(e.g., discarding)
those objects for reclaming. However, that's not the case
in zsmalloc.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists