> Wiadomość napisana przez Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> w dniu 31.08.2024, o godz. 19:23: > > On Sat, Aug 31, 2024 at 2:41 AM Piotr Oniszczuk > <piotr.oniszczuk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Wiadomość napisana przez Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> w dniu 29.08.2024, o godz. 23:54: >>> >>> I also noticed that you are using z3fold as the zpool. Is the problem >>> reproducible with zsmalloc? I wouldn't be surprised if there's a >>> z3fold bug somewhere. >>> >> >> Hmm - yesterday i recompiled 6.9.12 with zsmalloc and …. after 16h of continuous tests I can’t reproduce issue. >> With zsmalloc 6.9.12 looks to me like stable. > > Interesting, and a little bit what I hoped for tbh. :-) I tested mainline 6.10.7 with 26h test and also it is stable with zsmalloc > >> >> With this - what will be your advice to move forward? > > Well, it's possible that some zswap change was not fully compatible > with z3fold, or surfaced a dormant bug in z3fold. Either way, my > recommendation is to use zsmalloc. > I have been trying to deprecate IMHO - isn’t bug in this report + difficulties to reproduce->fix enough to depreciate z3fold? > z3fold, and honestly you are the only person I have seen use z3fold in > a while -- which is probably why no one else reported such a problem. Well - in fact this is ArchLinux - not me. I’m using Arch and kernel in builder machine with ArchLinux config + packaging > >> Is there any possibility/way to avoid bisecting? (due limited time from my side) > > So unless you have a reason to specifically use z3fold or avoid > zsmalloc, please use zsmalloc. It should be better for you anyway. I I see benefits already: on very memory demanding qtwebkit compile: z3fold: swap frequently gets 6..8G from 16G available zsmalloc: can’t see more than 1..2G > doubt that you (or anyone) wants to spend time debugging a z3fold > problem :) lets depreciate it!
