2017-04-26 15:29 GMT+09:00 Minchan Kim <minc...@kernel.org>: > Hi Sergey and Joonsoo, > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 02:57:03PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:14:52AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > On (04/26/17 09:52), js1...@gmail.com wrote: >> > [..] >> > > ret = scnprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE, >> > > - "%8llu %8llu %8llu %8lu %8ld %8llu %8lu\n", >> > > + "%8llu %8llu %8llu %8lu %8ld %8llu %8lu %8llu %8llu\n", >> > > orig_size << PAGE_SHIFT, >> > > (u64)atomic64_read(&zram->stats.compr_data_size), >> > > mem_used << PAGE_SHIFT, >> > > zram->limit_pages << PAGE_SHIFT, >> > > max_used << PAGE_SHIFT, >> > > (u64)atomic64_read(&zram->stats.same_pages), >> > > - pool_stats.pages_compacted); >> > > + pool_stats.pages_compacted, >> > > + zram_dedup_dup_size(zram), >> > > + zram_dedup_meta_size(zram)); >> > >> > hm... should't we subtract zram_dedup_dup_size(zram) from >> > ->stats.compr_data_size? we don't use extra memory for dedupped >> > pages. or don't inc ->stats.compr_data_size for dedupped pages? >> >> Hmm... My intention is to keep previous stat as much as possible. User >> can just notice the saving by only checking mem_used. >> >> However, it's also odd that compr_data_size doesn't show actual >> compressed data size. > > Actually, I found it for the last review cycle but didn't say that > intentionally. Because it is also odd to me that pages_stored isn't > increased for same_pages so I thought we can fix it all. > > I mean: > > * normal page > inc pages_stored > inc compr_data_size > * same_page > inc pages_stored > inc same_pages > * dedup_page > inc pages_stored > inc dup_data_size > > IOW, pages_stored should be increased for every write IO. > But the concern is we have said in zram.txt > > orig_data_size uncompressed size of data stored in this disk. > This excludes same-element-filled pages (same_pages) since > no memory is allocated for them. > > So, we might be too late. :-( > What do you think about it? > If anyone doesn't have any objection, I want to correct it all.
I have no objection. If so, do I need to postpone this patchset until others are fixed? Thanks.
