[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0a6603c4-ac05-460c-8bad-66813570b426@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 11:44:24 +0800
From: Alex Shi <seakeel@...il.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, alexs@...nel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, izik.eidus@...ellosystems.com,
willy@...radead.org, aarcange@...hat.com, chrisw@...s-sol.org,
hughd@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] mm/ksm: calc_checksum for folio
On 6/4/24 9:18 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> @@ -2369,7 +2371,7 @@ static void cmp_and_merge_page(struct page *page, struct ksm_rmap_item *rmap_ite
>> * don't want to insert it in the unstable tree, and we don't want
>> * to waste our time searching for something identical to it there.
>> */
>> - checksum = calc_checksum(page);
>> + checksum = calc_checksum(folio);
>
> So for a large folio you suddenly checksum more than a single page? That's wrong.
>
> Or am I missing something?
I am not sure if this change are good too, anyway, comparing the whole folio may have it advantages on efficiency, but more splitting do save more pages.
Anyway, this change could be dropped.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists