On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:20:06 +1100
Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> That's an incorrect assumption. Long spinlock holds prevent
> scheduling on that CPU, and so we still get latency problems.
Fair enough. The problem is, some of the z3fold code that need mutual
exclusion runs with preemption disabled s
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:26:34AM +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 09:52:06 +1100
> Dave Chinner wrote:
>
>
> >
> > > +static unsigned long z3fold_shrink_scan(struct shrinker *shrink,
> > > + struct shrink_control *sc)
> > > +{
> > > + struct z3fold_pool
On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 09:52:06 +1100
Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> > +static unsigned long z3fold_shrink_scan(struct shrinker *shrink,
> > + struct shrink_control *sc)
> > +{
> > + struct z3fold_pool *pool = container_of(shrink, struct z3fold_pool,
> > +
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:18:27AM +0200, Vitaly Wool wrote:
>
> Here comes the correct shrinker patch for z3fold. This shrinker
> implementation does not free up any pages directly but it allows
> for a denser placement of compressed objects which results in
> less actual pages consumed and highe
Here comes the correct shrinker patch for z3fold. This shrinker
implementation does not free up any pages directly but it allows
for a denser placement of compressed objects which results in
less actual pages consumed and higher compression ratio therefore.
This patch has been checked with the la
5 matches
Mail list logo