On (24/08/06 12:34), Yosry Ahmed wrote: [..] > > So the sole reason for this work is as a part of the mem_desc > > conversion. I'd like to hear from others who are to be involved in > > that conversion, please - it this patchset something we should be > > merging? > > > > Matthew asked an important question here that needs to be answered by > zsmalloc experts: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Zq0zucMFsOwATsAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Iff "zsmalloc experts" include me: I was under impression that there was a zsmalloc conversion plan otherwise this zpdesc effort is a little confusing, and, frankly, it hasn't appeared to me that this is "my problem" now. > Do you allocate a per-page struct zpdesc, and have each one pointing > to a zspage? I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to memdesc, excuse my ignorance, and please feel free to educate me. So I guess if we have something struct zspage { .. struct zpdesc *first_desc; .. } and we "chain" zpdesc-s to form a zspage, and make each of them point to a corresponding struct page (memdesc -> *page), then it'll resemble current zsmalloc and should work for everyone? I also assume for zspdesc-s zsmalloc will need to maintain a dedicated kmem_cache?
