From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752724AbbIYJ6Q (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 25 Sep 2015 05:58:16 -0400
Received: from mail-pa0-f48.google.com ([209.85.220.48]:35900 "EHLO
	mail-pa0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751770AbbIYJ6O (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 25 Sep 2015 05:58:14 -0400
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 18:57:02 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
To: Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
        Seth Jennings <sjennings@variantweb.net>,
        Dan Streetman <ddstreet@ieee.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] zbud: allow up to PAGE_SIZE allocations
Message-ID: <20150925095702.GA1049@swordfish>
References: <20150922141733.d7d97f59f207d0655c3b881d@gmail.com>
 <20150923031845.GA31207@cerebellum.local.variantweb.net>
 <CAMJBoFOEYv05FZqDER9hw79re4vrc3wKwGeuL=uoGbCnwodH8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150923215726.GA17171@cerebellum.local.variantweb.net>
 <20150925021325.GA16431@bbox>
 <20150925080525.GE865@swordfish>
 <CAMJBoFPg+rZqXRdJCLK1RYY8vs0NmBZzuTUD33AMzQn+tyN5Jw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMJBoFPg+rZqXRdJCLK1RYY8vs0NmBZzuTUD33AMzQn+tyN5Jw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On (09/25/15 10:27), Vitaly Wool wrote:
> > Have you seen those symptoms before? How did you come up to a conclusion
> > that zram->zbud will do the trick?
> 
> I have data from various tests (partially described here:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/17/244) and once again, I'll post a reply

yeah, I guess I'm just not so bright to quickly understand what is wrong
with zsmalloc from those numbers.

> to https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/15/33 with more detailed test
> description and explanation why zsmalloc is not the right choice for
> me.

great, thanks.

> > If those symptoms are some sort of a recent addition, then does it help
> > when you disable zsmalloc compaction?
> 
> No it doesn't. OTOH enabled zsmalloc compaction doesn't seem to have a
> substantial effect either.

hm. ok, that was my quick guess.

	-ss