From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-la0-f53.google.com (mail-la0-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D40146B0265 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:02:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lamp12 with SMTP id p12so86429227lam.0 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2015 07:02:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ex4si17381831wic.11.2015.09.14.07.02.00 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 14 Sep 2015 07:02:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] allow zram to use zbud as underlying allocator References: <20150914154901.92c5b7b24e15f04d8204de18@gmail.com> From: Vlastimil Babka Message-ID: <55F6D356.5000106@suse.cz> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:01:58 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150914154901.92c5b7b24e15f04d8204de18@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Vitaly Wool , minchan@kernel.org, sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com, ddstreet@ieee.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On 09/14/2015 03:49 PM, Vitaly Wool wrote: > While using ZRAM on a small RAM footprint devices, together with > KSM, > I ran into several occasions when moving pages from compressed swap back > into the "normal" part of RAM caused significant latencies in system I'm sure Minchan will want to hear the details of that :) > operation. By using zbud I lose in compression ratio but gain in > determinism, lower latencies and lower fragmentation, so in the coming I doubt the "lower fragmentation" part given what I've read about the design of zbud and zsmalloc? > patches I tried to generalize what I've done to enable zbud for zram so far. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755049AbbINOCE (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:02:04 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:38597 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751708AbbINOCC (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:02:02 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] allow zram to use zbud as underlying allocator To: Vitaly Wool , minchan@kernel.org, sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com, ddstreet@ieee.org References: <20150914154901.92c5b7b24e15f04d8204de18@gmail.com> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org From: Vlastimil Babka Message-ID: <55F6D356.5000106@suse.cz> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:01:58 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150914154901.92c5b7b24e15f04d8204de18@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/14/2015 03:49 PM, Vitaly Wool wrote: > While using ZRAM on a small RAM footprint devices, together with > KSM, > I ran into several occasions when moving pages from compressed swap back > into the "normal" part of RAM caused significant latencies in system I'm sure Minchan will want to hear the details of that :) > operation. By using zbud I lose in compression ratio but gain in > determinism, lower latencies and lower fragmentation, so in the coming I doubt the "lower fragmentation" part given what I've read about the design of zbud and zsmalloc? > patches I tried to generalize what I've done to enable zbud for zram so far.