On (22/08/09 14:45), Jiri Slaby wrote: > On 09. 08. 22, 14:35, Jiri Slaby wrote: > > But the installer is different. It just creates memory pressure, yet, > > reclaim works well and is able to find memory and go on. I would say > > atomic vs non-atomic retry in the original (pre-5.19) approach makes the > > difference. > > Sorry, I meant no-direct-reclaim (5.19) vs direct-reclaim (pre-5.19). Sure, I understood. This somehow makes me scratch my head and ask if we really want to continue using per-CPU steams. We previously (many years ago) had a list of idle compression streams, which would do compression in preemptible context and we would have only one zs_malloc handle allocation path, which would do direct reclaim (when needed)
