From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f71.google.com (mail-pa0-f71.google.com [209.85.220.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B2186B007E for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 21:07:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f71.google.com with SMTP id zy2so147677432pac.1 for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 18:07:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pf0-x241.google.com (mail-pf0-x241.google.com. [2607:f8b0:400e:c00::241]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id az8si20945700pab.242.2016.05.12.18.07.56 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 12 May 2016 18:07:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf0-x241.google.com with SMTP id 145so7924511pfz.1 for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 18:07:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 10:09:29 +0900 From: Sergey Senozhatsky Subject: Re: [PATCH] zram: introduce per-device debug_stat sysfs node Message-ID: <20160513010929.GA615@swordfish> References: <20160511134553.12655-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> <20160512234143.GA27204@bbox> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160512234143.GA27204@bbox> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Minchan Kim Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Sergey Senozhatsky Hello Minchan, On (05/13/16 08:41), Minchan Kim wrote: [..] will fix and update, thanks! > > @@ -719,6 +737,8 @@ compress_again: > > zcomp_strm_release(zram->comp, zstrm); > > zstrm = NULL; > > > > + atomic64_inc(&zram->stats.num_recompress); > > + > > It should be below "goto compress_again". I moved it out of goto intentionally. this second zs_malloc() handle = zs_malloc(meta->mem_pool, clen, GFP_NOIO | __GFP_HIGHMEM | __GFP_MOVABLE); can take some time to complete, which will slow down zram for a bit, and _theoretically_ this second zs_malloc() still can fail. yes, we would do the error print out pr_err("Error allocating memory ... ") and inc the `failed_writes' in zram_bvec_rw(), but zram_bvec_write() has several more error return paths that can inc the `failed_writes'. so by just looking at the stats we won't be able to tell that we had failed fast path allocation combined with failed slow path allocation (IOW, `goto recompress' never happened). so I'm thinking about changing its name to num_failed_fast_compress or num_failed_fast_write, or something similar and thus count the number of times we fell to "!handle" branch, not the number of goto-s. what do you think? or do you want it to be num_recompress specifically? > Other than that, > > Acked-by: Minchan Kim > thanks. -ss -- 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