On 03/30/2016 11:13 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (03/30/16 10:56), Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> [..]
>>> +static inline void zram_unlock_table(struct zram_table_entry *table)
>>> +{
>>> + __clear_bit(ZRAM_ACCESS, &table->value);
>>> + spin_unlock(&table->lock);
>>> +}
>>
>> ZRAM_ACCESS is the only bit used for locking. ZRAM_ZERO is the only flag
>> set / tested.
>> Would it be possible to make value u32 and add a spinlock? value is has
>> not 64bit on 64bit systems and it uses only the first 23bits for the
>> size and bit 24+25 for the two flags we have now. So the size should not
>> change on 64bit systems only increase by four byte on 32bit systems.
>> That is without the lock debugging of course.
>>
>> Minchan, Nitin, Sergey do see any reason not to do so?
>
> that's increased size for every table entry + lock debugging bloat;
> not exactly what zram is trying to do. sounds bad enough.
That size is _only_ increased with lockdep enabled. So if you that much
concerned about size of this struct why not disable lockdep?
>
> -ss
>
Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
