Hello Minchan,
On (05/13/16 08:41), Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]
will fix and update, thanks!
> > @@ -719,6 +737,8 @@ compress_again:
> > zcomp_strm_release(zram->comp, zstrm);
> > zstrm = NULL;
> >
> > + atomic64_inc(&zram->stats.num_recompress);
> > +
>
> It should be below "goto compress_again".
I moved it out of goto intentionally. this second zs_malloc()
handle = zs_malloc(meta->mem_pool, clen,
GFP_NOIO | __GFP_HIGHMEM |
__GFP_MOVABLE);
can take some time to complete, which will slow down zram for a bit,
and _theoretically_ this second zs_malloc() still can fail. yes, we
would do the error print out pr_err("Error allocating memory ... ")
and inc the `failed_writes' in zram_bvec_rw(), but zram_bvec_write()
has several more error return paths that can inc the `failed_writes'.
so by just looking at the stats we won't be able to tell that we had
failed fast path allocation combined with failed slow path allocation
(IOW, `goto recompress' never happened).
so I'm thinking about changing its name to num_failed_fast_compress
or num_failed_fast_write, or something similar and thus count the number
of times we fell to "!handle" branch, not the number of goto-s.
what do you think? or do you want it to be num_recompress specifically?
> Other than that,
>
> Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
thanks.
-ss
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>