[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m2dmxnhtvxano6lye7lr3saiobn4ygpln55xntlstfo4zwws5g@qpq7aagx3xwq>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 14:57:23 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosry.ahmed@...ux.dev>
Cc: Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@...sulko.se>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Igor Belousov <igor.b@...dev.am>, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/zblock: use vmalloc for page allocations
On (25/05/06 13:13), Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> If we can use vmalloc for zblock, then we can probably also use vmalloc
> in zsmalloc and get rid of the chaining logic completely. This would
> make zsmalloc simpler and closer to zblock in that regard.
>
> Sergey, WDYT?
This sounds interesting. We might get rid of lots of memcpy()
in object read/write paths, and so on. I don't know if 0-order
chaining was the only option for zsmalloc, or just happened to
be the first one.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists