On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 3:10 AM Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 5:16 PM Chengming Zhou > <zhouchengming@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Thanks for your explanation! Maybe it's best for us to return to 2 pages > > if no other people's comments. And this really need more documentation :-) Fine by me. Hmm we're basically wasting one extra page per CPU (since these buffers are per-CPU), correct? That's not ideal, but not *too* bad for now I suppose... > > I agree. we need some doc. > > besides, i actually think we can skip zswap frontend if > over-compression is really > happening. IIUC, zsmalloc already checked that - and most people are (or should be) using zsmalloc for zswap anyway. I wouldn't be opposed to adding an added layer of protection on the zswap side, but not super high priority I'd say.
