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]
Date:   Fri, 18 Mar 2022 10:30:23 -0700
From:   Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To:     Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zram: Add a huge_idle writeback mode

On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 12:51:14PM -0400, Brian Geffon wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 12:41 PM Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 10:22:21AM -0700, Brian Geffon wrote:
> > > Today it's only possible to write back as a page, idle, or huge.
> > > A user might want to writeback pages which are huge and idle first
> > > as these idle pages do not require decompression and make a good
> > > first pass for writeback.
> >
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> > I am not sure how much the decompression overhead matter for idle pages
> > writeback since it's already *very slow* path in zram but I agree that
> > it would be a good first pass since the memory saving for huge writing
> > would be cost efficient.
> >
> > Just out of curiosity. Do you have real usecase?
> 
> Hi Minchan,
> Thank you for taking a look. When we are thinking about writeback
> we're trying to be very sensitive to our devices storage endurance,
> for this reason we will have a fairly conservative writeback limit.
> Given that, we want to make sure we're maximizing what lands on disk
> while still minimizing the refault time. We could take the approach
> where we always writeback huge pages but then we may result in very
> quick refaults which would be a huge waste of time. So idle writeback
> is a must for us and being able to writeback the pages which have
> maximum value (huge) would be very useful.

Thanks for sharing the thought. It really make sense to me and
would be great if it goes on the description.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ