On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 4:21 PM Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On (24/02/06 20:17), Jens Axboe wrote: > [..] > > >>> Minchan, if you have any objections, please chime in. > > >> > > >> Not Minchan, but I do have an issue with the title of the commit, it > > >> doesn't make any sense. Can the maintainer please re-write that to be > > >> something that is appropriate and actually describes what the patch > > >> does? > > > > > > Thanks Jens. I fully agree, I requested a better commit message in > > > v1 feedback, we probably still can improve on this. > > > > > > > > > Something like this? > > > > > > --- > > > > > > zram: do not allocate physically contiguous strm buffers > > > > > > Currently zram allocates 2 physically contigous pages per-CPU's > > > compression stream (we may have up to 3 streams per-CPU). Since > > > those buffers are per-CPU we allocate them from CPU hotplug path, > > > which may have higher risks of failed allocations on devices with > > > fragmented memory. > > > > > > Switch to virtually contiguos allocations - crypto comp does not > > > seem impose requirements on compression working buffers to be > > > physically contiguous. > > > > Yep, this is much better! Thanks. > > Thanks. > Hi Sergey, Jens, > Barry, can you please send v3 with the suggested subject and commit > message? Thanks for your comments and improvements. will send v3 accordingly. Best regard Barry
