On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 06:38:35PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (25/01/28 14:29), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > Maybe copy-in is just an okay thing to do. Let me try to measure. > > Naaah, not really okay. On our memory-pressure test (4GB device, 4 > CPUs) that kmap_local thingy appears to save approx 6GB of memcpy(). > > CPY stats: 734954 1102903168 4926116 6566654656 > > There were 734954 cases when we memcpy() [object spans two pages] with > accumulated size of 1102903168 bytes, and 4926116 cases when we took > a shortcut via kmap_local and avoided memcpy(), with accumulated size > of 6566654656 bytes. > > In both cases I counted only RO direction for map, and WO direction > for unmap. Yeah seems like the optimization is effective, at least on that workload, unless the memcpy() is cheap and avoiding it is not buying as much (do you know if that's the case?). Anyway, we can keep the optimization and zswap could start making use of it if zsmalloc becomes preemtible, so that's still a win.
