On (05/13/16 16:20), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > @@ -737,12 +737,12 @@ static int zram_bvec_write(struct zram *zram, struct bio_vec *bvec, u32 index,
> > > > zcomp_strm_release(zram->comp, zstrm);
> > > > zstrm = NULL;
> > > >
> > > > - atomic64_inc(&zram->stats.num_recompress);
> > > > -
> > > > handle = zs_malloc(meta->mem_pool, clen,
> > > > GFP_NOIO | __GFP_HIGHMEM);
> > > > - if (handle)
> > > > + if (handle) {
> > > > + atomic64_inc(&zram->stats.num_recompress);
> > > > goto compress_again;
> > > > + }
just a small note:
> Although 2 is smaller, your patch just accounts only direct reclaim but my
> suggestion can count both 1 and 2 so isn't it better?
no, my patch accounts 1) and 2) as well. the only difference is that my
patch accounts second zs_malloc() call _EVEN_ if it has failed and we
jumped to goto err (because we still could have done reclaim). the new
version would account second zs_malloc() _ONLY_ if it has succeeded, and
thus possibly reclaim would not be accounted.
recompress:
compress
handle = zs_malloc FAST PATH
if (!handle) {
release stream
handle = zs_malloc SLOW PATH
<< my patch accounts SLOW PATH here >>
if (handle) {
num_recompress++ << NEW version accounts it here, only it was OK >>
goto recompress;
}
goto err; << SLOW PATH is not accounted if SLOW PATH was unsuccessful
}
-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>