On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 03:59:26PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (11/22/18 15:31), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > >
> > > I got what you mean now. Let's call it as "incompressible page wrieback"
> > > to prevent confusing.
> > >
> > > "incompressible page writeback" would be orthgonal feature.
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 03:59:26PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (11/22/18 15:31), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > >
> > > I got what you mean now. Let's call it as "incompressible page wrieback"
> > > to prevent confusing.
> > >
> > > "incompressible page writeback" would be orthgonal feature.
On (11/22/18 15:31), Minchan Kim wrote:
> >
> > I got what you mean now. Let's call it as "incompressible page wrieback"
> > to prevent confusing.
> >
> > "incompressible page writeback" would be orthgonal feature. The goal is
> > "let's save memory at the cost of *latency*". If the page is
On (11/22/18 15:31), Minchan Kim wrote:
> >
> > I got what you mean now. Let's call it as "incompressible page wrieback"
> > to prevent confusing.
> >
> > "incompressible page writeback" would be orthgonal feature. The goal is
> > "let's save memory at the cost of *latency*". If the page is
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 03:15:42PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 02:40:40PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (11/22/18 14:04), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > >
> > > > additionally, it's too simple. It writes-back pages which can be
> > > > swapped in immediately; which
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 03:15:42PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 02:40:40PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (11/22/18 14:04), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > >
> > > > additionally, it's too simple. It writes-back pages which can be
> > > > swapped in immediately; which
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 02:40:40PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (11/22/18 14:04), Minchan Kim wrote:
> >
> > > additionally, it's too simple. It writes-back pages which can be
> > > swapped in immediately; which basically means that we do pointless
> > > PAGE_SIZE writes to a device
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 02:40:40PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (11/22/18 14:04), Minchan Kim wrote:
> >
> > > additionally, it's too simple. It writes-back pages which can be
> > > swapped in immediately; which basically means that we do pointless
> > > PAGE_SIZE writes to a device
On (11/22/18 14:04), Minchan Kim wrote:
>
> > additionally, it's too simple. It writes-back pages which can be
> > swapped in immediately; which basically means that we do pointless
> > PAGE_SIZE writes to a device which doesn't really like pointless
> > writes.
>
> This patchset aims for *IDLE
On (11/22/18 14:04), Minchan Kim wrote:
>
> > additionally, it's too simple. It writes-back pages which can be
> > swapped in immediately; which basically means that we do pointless
> > PAGE_SIZE writes to a device which doesn't really like pointless
> > writes.
>
> This patchset aims for *IDLE
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 11:14:43AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (11/21/18 05:34), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > >
> > > Just a thought,
> > >
> > > I wonder if it will make sense (and if it will be possible) to writeback
> > > idle _compressed_ objects. Right now we decompress, say, a
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 11:14:43AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (11/21/18 05:34), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > >
> > > Just a thought,
> > >
> > > I wonder if it will make sense (and if it will be possible) to writeback
> > > idle _compressed_ objects. Right now we decompress, say, a
On (11/21/18 05:34), Minchan Kim wrote:
> >
> > Just a thought,
> >
> > I wonder if it will make sense (and if it will be possible) to writeback
> > idle _compressed_ objects. Right now we decompress, say, a perfectly
> > fine 400-byte compressed object to a PAGE_SIZE-d object and then push
> >
On (11/21/18 05:34), Minchan Kim wrote:
> >
> > Just a thought,
> >
> > I wonder if it will make sense (and if it will be possible) to writeback
> > idle _compressed_ objects. Right now we decompress, say, a perfectly
> > fine 400-byte compressed object to a PAGE_SIZE-d object and then push
> >
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 01:55:51PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (11/16/18 16:20), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > + zram_set_flag(zram, index, ZRAM_UNDER_WB);
> > + zram_slot_unlock(zram, index);
> > + if (zram_bvec_read(zram, , index, 0, NULL)) {
> > +
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 01:55:51PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (11/16/18 16:20), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > + zram_set_flag(zram, index, ZRAM_UNDER_WB);
> > + zram_slot_unlock(zram, index);
> > + if (zram_bvec_read(zram, , index, 0, NULL)) {
> > +
On (11/16/18 16:20), Minchan Kim wrote:
> + zram_set_flag(zram, index, ZRAM_UNDER_WB);
> + zram_slot_unlock(zram, index);
> + if (zram_bvec_read(zram, , index, 0, NULL)) {
> + zram_slot_lock(zram, index);
> +
On (11/16/18 16:20), Minchan Kim wrote:
> + zram_set_flag(zram, index, ZRAM_UNDER_WB);
> + zram_slot_unlock(zram, index);
> + if (zram_bvec_read(zram, , index, 0, NULL)) {
> + zram_slot_lock(zram, index);
> +
This patch supports new feature "zram idle page writeback".
On zram-swap usecase, zram has usually idle swap pages come
from many processes. It's pointless to keep in memory(ie, zram).
To solve the problem, this feature gives idle page writeback to
backing device so the goal is to save more
This patch supports new feature "zram idle page writeback".
On zram-swap usecase, zram has usually idle swap pages come
from many processes. It's pointless to keep in memory(ie, zram).
To solve the problem, this feature gives idle page writeback to
backing device so the goal is to save more
20 matches
Mail list logo
