From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f199.google.com (mail-pf0-f199.google.com [209.85.192.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B90C56B0253 for ; Fri, 13 May 2016 02:58:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pf0-f199.google.com with SMTP id 4so189304713pfw.0 for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 23:58:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x243.google.com (mail-pa0-x243.google.com. [2607:f8b0:400e:c03::243]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r193si22767334pfr.120.2016.05.12.23.58.38 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 12 May 2016 23:58:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pa0-x243.google.com with SMTP id i5so7914167pag.3 for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 23:58:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 15:58:05 +0900 From: Sergey Senozhatsky Subject: Re: [PATCH] zram: introduce per-device debug_stat sysfs node Message-ID: <20160513065805.GB615@swordfish> References: <20160511134553.12655-1-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> <20160512234143.GA27204@bbox> <20160513010929.GA615@swordfish> <20160513062303.GA21204@bbox> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160513062303.GA21204@bbox> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Minchan Kim Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky , Sergey Senozhatsky , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On (05/13/16 15:23), Minchan Kim wrote: [..] > @@ -737,12 +737,12 @@ static int zram_bvec_write(struct zram *zram, struct bio_vec *bvec, u32 index, > zcomp_strm_release(zram->comp, zstrm); > zstrm = NULL; > > - atomic64_inc(&zram->stats.num_recompress); > - > handle = zs_malloc(meta->mem_pool, clen, > GFP_NOIO | __GFP_HIGHMEM); > - if (handle) > + if (handle) { > + atomic64_inc(&zram->stats.num_recompress); > goto compress_again; > + } not like a real concern... the main (and only) purpose of num_recompress is to match performance slowdowns and failed fast write paths (when the first zs_malloc() fails). this matching is depending on successful second zs_malloc(), but if it's also unsuccessful we would only increase failed_writes; w/o increasing the failed fast write counter, while we actually would have failed fast write and extra zs_malloc() [unaccounted in this case]. yet it's probably a bit unlikely to happen, but still. well, just saying. -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