On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 8:12 PM Samuel Sieb <sam...@sieb.net> wrote: > > On 6/5/20 6:59 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 6:47 PM Samuel Sieb <sam...@sieb.net> wrote: > >> > >> I installed the zram package and noticed the systemd-swap package, so > >> installed that also. > > > > There are conflicting implementations: > > > > anaconda package provides zram.service > > zram package provides zram-swap.service > > systemd-swap package provides > > Did you leave something out?
systemd-swap package provides systemd-swap.service > Are you saying that zram and systemd-swap both provide configuration for > zram? All three of those listed provide competing configurations for swap on zram. Just to make a fine point, zram is generic, it is not swap specific. It's just a compressed ram disk. Zswap is a different thing, it is swap specific, providing a memory based writeback cache to a disk based swap. > > > I've only casually tested systemd-swap package. Note this isn't an > > upstream systemd project. Where as the proposed rust zram-generator is > > "upstream" in that it's maintained by the same folks, but is not > > provided by systemd package I think because it's in rust. > > Ok, I was thinking the generator might require rebooting to get it to > work. And I saw the systemd-swap package and thought that sounded > useful to try. The generator does require a reboot to change configurations. You could absolutely say, but Chris, the other ones you can just systemctl restart! That is true, but except for testing, I don't see that as an advantage compared to the overall simplisticity of zram-generator and reusing the existing infrastructure in systemd that's already well tested and maintained. > > > There shouldn't be any weird/bad interactions between them, but it is > > possible for the user to become very confused which one is working. It > > *should* be zram-generator because it runs much earlier during boot > > than the others. But I have not thoroughly tested for conflicting > > interactions, mainly just sanity testing to make sure things don't > > blow up. > > I only started the one service, so I don't think there are any conflicts. So what you can do is disable all the above listed service units. And you'll be testing the zram-generator alone. The config file for that is /etc/systemd/zram-generator.conf Since there isn't yet an option to set swap priority, chances are it gets auto-assigned during boot by the kernel. Usually /dev/zram0 comes first and should get -2 priority and /dev/swapondisk will get a -3. In that case, zram is higher priority already. But if flipped, you can just: swapoff /dev/zram0 swapon -p 3000 /dev/zram0 Although really any value higher than the disk based swap is sufficient. > > >> I adjusted the zram setting to 4G and reduced > >> zswap a bit. I have no idea what that is doing, it doesn't seem to > >> affect anything I can measure. The overall improvement in > >> responsiveness is very nice. > > > > It might be you're modifying the configuration of a different > > implementation from the one that's actually setting up swaponzram. > > No, it was quite clear that I was modifying the right config. It's the > /etc/systemd/swap.conf as described in the man page and it was affecting > the result. OK that is not for zram-generator. That's for one of the others. Off hand I don't know which one it's for, this is way too confusing because of all the competing implementations, which is part of the motivation of the feature -> buh bye, thank you for your service! > > >> I don't understand the numbers I'm getting for these. I disabled my > >> swap partition to force as much to go to zram as possible and then > >> turned it back on. > >> > >> # swapon > >> NAME TYPE SIZE USED PRIO > >> /dev/sda3 partition 16G 1.9G -2 > >> /zram0 partition 4G 4G 32767 > >> > >> This looks like I'm using all 4G of allocated space in the zram swap, but: > >> > >> # zramctl > >> NAME ALGORITHM DISKSIZE DATA COMPR TOTAL STREAMS MOUNTPOINT > >> /dev/zram0 lz4 4G 1.8G 658.5M 679.6M 4 > >> > >> This suggests that it's only using 1.8G. Can you explain what this means? > > > > Yeah that's confusing. zramctl just gets info from sysfs, but you > > could double check it by > > > > cat /sys/block/zram0/mm_stat > > > > The first value should match "DATA" column in zramctl (which reports in > > MiB). > > > > While the kernel has long had support for using up to 32 swap devices > > at the same time, this is seldom used in practice so it could be an > > artifact of this? Indicating that all of this swap is "in use" from > > the swap perspective, where zramctl is telling you the truth about > > what the zram kernel module is actually using. Is it a cosmetic > > reporting bug or intentional? Good question. I'll try to reproduce and > > report it upstream and see what they say. But if you beat me to it > > that would be great, and then I can just write the email for linux-mm > > and cite your bug report. :D > > Part of my concern is that if it's not actually full, then why is it > using so much of the disk swap? Not sure. What should be true is if you swapoff on /dev/sda3 it'll move any referenced anon pages to /dev/zram0. And then if you swapon /dev/sda3 it will use 0 bytes until /dev/zram0 is full. What kernel version are you using? > For upstream, do you mean the kernel? Yes. bugzilla.kernel.org - this goes to the linux-mm folks (memory management) but you can search for a zram bug and just see what component they use and post the bug here and I'll pick it up. -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
