linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 1/4] zram: introduce writeback bio batching support

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: <tencent_3E9743D12F77CFF8B8EBDDB9529EDA975306@qq.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 11:48:07 +0800
From: Yuwen Chen <ywen.chen@...mail.com>
To: bgeffon@...gle.com
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	licayy@...look.com,
	linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org,
	minchan@...gle.com,
	minchan@...nel.org,
	richardycc@...gle.com,
	senozhatsky@...omium.org,
	ywen.chen@...mail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 1/4] zram: introduce writeback bio batching support

On Mon, 17 Nov 2025 10:19:22 -0500, Brian Geffon wrote:
> Out of curiosity, why are we doing 1 page per bio? Why are we not
> adding BIO_MAX_VECS before submitting? And then, why are we not
> chaining? Do the block layer maintainers have thoughts?

Mainly because the zram backend device is quite special. When
performing the writeback operation, the probability of continuous
writing is relatively low. If BIO_MAX_VECS is used, it will make
the logic extremely complex. Thank you very much!