Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On (12/01/15 17:16), Minchan Kim wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 04:15:42PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > On (12/01/15 15:35), Kyeongdon Kim wrote: > > [..] > > > @test #4 > > > kmalloc(f) > > > __vmalloc(f) > > > // cannot find failure both until now > > > > > > log message (test #4) :

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 04:15:42PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (12/01/15 15:35), Kyeongdon Kim wrote: > [..] > > @test #4 > > kmalloc(f) > > __vmalloc(f) > > // cannot find failure both until now > > > > log message (test #4) : > > <4>[ 641.440468][7] KDKIM: zcomp_lz4_create: 24: ret

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On (12/01/15 17:16), Minchan Kim wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 04:15:42PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > On (12/01/15 15:35), Kyeongdon Kim wrote: > > [..] > > > @test #4 > > > kmalloc(f) > > > __vmalloc(f) > > > // cannot find failure both until now > > > > > > log message (test #4) :

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 04:15:42PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (12/01/15 15:35), Kyeongdon Kim wrote: > [..] > > @test #4 > > kmalloc(f) > > __vmalloc(f) > > // cannot find failure both until now > > > > log message (test #4) : > > <4>[ 641.440468][7] KDKIM: zcomp_lz4_create: 24: ret

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On (12/01/15 16:15), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (12/01/15 15:35), Kyeongdon Kim wrote: > [..] > > @test #4 > > kmalloc(f) > > __vmalloc(f) > > // cannot find failure both until now > > > > log message (test #4) : > > <4>[ 641.440468][7] KDKIM: zcomp_lz4_create: 24: ret = ffc00219 >

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On (12/01/15 15:35), Kyeongdon Kim wrote: > Let me give you a simple code of it. > > @test #1 (previous shared log) > kmalloc(f | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC) > __vmalloc(f | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC) > // can find failure both > > @test #2 (previous shared log) > kmalloc(f | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC) > __vmalloc(f)

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On (12/01/15 15:35), Kyeongdon Kim wrote: [..] > @test #4 > kmalloc(f) > __vmalloc(f) > // cannot find failure both until now > > log message (test #4) : > <4>[ 641.440468][7] KDKIM: zcomp_lz4_create: 24: ret = ffc00219 > > <4>[ 922.182980][7] KDKIM: zcomp_lz4_create: 24: ret =

Re: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On 2015-12-01 오후 2:16, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (12/01/15 13:55), Minchan Kim wrote: > [..] >> To clear my opinion, >> >> lzo_create(gfp_t flags) >> { >> void * ret = kmalloc(LZO1X_MEM_COMPRESS, flags); >> if (!ret) >> ret = vmalloc(LZO1X_MEM_COMPRESS, flasgs | GFP_NOMEMALLOC); >> return

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On (12/01/15 13:55), Minchan Kim wrote: [..] > To clear my opinion, > > lzo_create(gfp_t flags) > { > void * ret = kmalloc(LZO1X_MEM_COMPRESS, flags); > if (!ret) > ret = vmalloc(LZO1X_MEM_COMPRESS, flasgs | GFP_NOMEMALLOC); > return ret; > } ah, ok, I

Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:31:41AM +0900, kyeongdon.kim wrote: > On 2015-12-01 오전 8:18, Minchan Kim wrote: > > Hi Kyeongdon, > > > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 07:42:02PM +0900, kyeongdon.kim wrote: > > > >> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 01:10:49PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > >> >> From:

Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On 2015-12-01 오전 8:18, Minchan Kim wrote: > Hi Kyeongdon, > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 07:42:02PM +0900, kyeongdon.kim wrote: > >> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 01:10:49PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: >> >> From: Kyeongdon Kim >> >> >> >> When we're using LZ4 multi compression streams for zram

Re: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On 2015-11-30 오후 8:14, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (11/30/15 19:42), kyeongdon.kim wrote: > [..] >> Sorry to have kept you waiting, >> Obviously, I couldn't see allocation fail message with this patch. >> But, there is something to make some delay(not sure yet this is normal). > > what delay?

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On (12/01/15 08:18), Minchan Kim wrote: [..] > > As you know, if there is 'null' return, this function is called again to > > get a memory in while() loop. I just checked this one with printk(). > > > > If you guys don't mind, I'll test more with trace log to check time delay. > > No problem. >

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On (11/30/15 19:42), kyeongdon.kim wrote: [..] > Sorry to have kept you waiting, > Obviously, I couldn't see allocation fail message with this patch. > But, there is something to make some delay(not sure yet this is normal). what delay? how significant it is? do you see it in practice or it's

Re: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On 2015-11-30 오후 4:10, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 01:10:49PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: >> From: Kyeongdon Kim >> >> When we're using LZ4 multi compression streams for zram swap, >> we found out page allocation failure message in system running test. >> That was not only

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On (12/01/15 08:18), Minchan Kim wrote: [..] > > As you know, if there is 'null' return, this function is called again to > > get a memory in while() loop. I just checked this one with printk(). > > > > If you guys don't mind, I'll test more with trace log to check time delay. > > No problem. >

Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On 2015-12-01 오전 8:18, Minchan Kim wrote: > Hi Kyeongdon, > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 07:42:02PM +0900, kyeongdon.kim wrote: > >> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 01:10:49PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: >> >> From: Kyeongdon Kim >> >> >> >> When we're using LZ4 multi

Re: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On 2015-11-30 오후 8:14, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (11/30/15 19:42), kyeongdon.kim wrote: > [..] >> Sorry to have kept you waiting, >> Obviously, I couldn't see allocation fail message with this patch. >> But, there is something to make some delay(not sure yet this is normal). > > what delay?

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On (12/01/15 13:55), Minchan Kim wrote: [..] > To clear my opinion, > > lzo_create(gfp_t flags) > { > void * ret = kmalloc(LZO1X_MEM_COMPRESS, flags); > if (!ret) > ret = vmalloc(LZO1X_MEM_COMPRESS, flasgs | GFP_NOMEMALLOC); > return ret; > } ah, ok, I

Re: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On 2015-12-01 오후 2:16, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (12/01/15 13:55), Minchan Kim wrote: > [..] >> To clear my opinion, >> >> lzo_create(gfp_t flags) >> { >> void * ret = kmalloc(LZO1X_MEM_COMPRESS, flags); >> if (!ret) >> ret = vmalloc(LZO1X_MEM_COMPRESS, flasgs | GFP_NOMEMALLOC); >> return

Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:31:41AM +0900, kyeongdon.kim wrote: > On 2015-12-01 오전 8:18, Minchan Kim wrote: > > Hi Kyeongdon, > > > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 07:42:02PM +0900, kyeongdon.kim wrote: > > > >> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 01:10:49PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > >> >> From:

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On (12/01/15 16:15), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (12/01/15 15:35), Kyeongdon Kim wrote: > [..] > > @test #4 > > kmalloc(f) > > __vmalloc(f) > > // cannot find failure both until now > > > > log message (test #4) : > > <4>[ 641.440468][7] KDKIM: zcomp_lz4_create: 24: ret = ffc00219 >

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On (12/01/15 15:35), Kyeongdon Kim wrote: [..] > @test #4 > kmalloc(f) > __vmalloc(f) > // cannot find failure both until now > > log message (test #4) : > <4>[ 641.440468][7] KDKIM: zcomp_lz4_create: 24: ret = ffc00219 > > <4>[ 922.182980][7] KDKIM: zcomp_lz4_create: 24: ret =

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On (12/01/15 15:35), Kyeongdon Kim wrote: > Let me give you a simple code of it. > > @test #1 (previous shared log) > kmalloc(f | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC) > __vmalloc(f | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC) > // can find failure both > > @test #2 (previous shared log) > kmalloc(f | __GFP_NOMEMALLOC) > __vmalloc(f)

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On (11/30/15 19:42), kyeongdon.kim wrote: [..] > Sorry to have kept you waiting, > Obviously, I couldn't see allocation fail message with this patch. > But, there is something to make some delay(not sure yet this is normal). what delay? how significant it is? do you see it in practice or it's

Re: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On 2015-11-30 오후 4:10, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 01:10:49PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: >> From: Kyeongdon Kim >> >> When we're using LZ4 multi compression streams for zram swap, >> we found out page allocation failure message in system running test.

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 01:10:49PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > From: Kyeongdon Kim > > When we're using LZ4 multi compression streams for zram swap, > we found out page allocation failure message in system running test. > That was not only once, but a few(2 - 5 times per test). > Also,

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 01:10:49PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > From: Kyeongdon Kim > > When we're using LZ4 multi compression streams for zram swap, > we found out page allocation failure message in system running test. > That was not only once, but a few(2 - 5

[PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

From: Kyeongdon Kim When we're using LZ4 multi compression streams for zram swap, we found out page allocation failure message in system running test. That was not only once, but a few(2 - 5 times per test). Also, some failure cases were continually occurring to try allocation order 3. In order

[PATCH v3 2/2] zram: try vmalloc() after kmalloc()

From: Kyeongdon Kim When we're using LZ4 multi compression streams for zram swap, we found out page allocation failure message in system running test. That was not only once, but a few(2 - 5 times per test). Also, some failure cases were continually occurring to try