linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next v9 0/3] Delay the initialization of zswap

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: <9b2b6dac-9a3d-efcb-9706-44f6df1fe2bf@huawei.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 May 2023 15:11:05 +0800
From:   Liu Shixin <liushixin2@...wei.com>
To:     Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>
CC:     Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>,
        Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org>,
        Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@...sulko.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v9 0/3] Delay the initialization of zswap



On 2023/5/4 8:11, Chris Li wrote:
> Hi Shixing,
>
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 05:36:29PM +0800, Liu Shixin wrote:
>> In the initialization of zswap, about 18MB memory will be allocated for
>> zswap_pool. Since some users may not use zswap, the zswap_pool is wasted.
>> Save memory by delaying the initialization of zswap until enabled.
> Sorry I am late to this discussion. I notice you are already at V9.
> Anyway, I am curious how much of the 18MB was came from the zswap_pool
> alone and how much of it came from the other part of the initialization.
>
> If it is the zswap_pool alone, it means that we can have a smaller patch
> to get most of your 18M back.
You're right, the most came from zswap_pool.
>
> I also notice you move a lot of __init function back to normal functions.
> That would mean those functions wouldn't be able to drop after the
> initialization phase. That is another reason to move less of the initialization
> function.
Thanks for your advice. I've thought about it before, but I thought there is less impact
for the size of kernel, so I didn't do it.
>
> Chris
>
> .
>