Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] zram: do not use copy_page with non-page aligned address" failed to apply to 3.18-stable tree

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On (04/19/17 16:22), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > And this bad compress ratio path would be rare, too.
> > 
> > "bad compression" is not uncommon. I wish it was, but it's not. we can't
> > really guarantee/expect anything, it's up to compression algorithm and data.
> 
> True.  Thanks for the testing!
> What are your workloads?

on that particular box -- compilation. text + binary files.

we swap out pages with random binary data, basically, so I wouldn't
expect "bad compression" to be uncommon on embedded devices.


> I think user shouldn't use zram for such lots of bad compression workload
> if it isn't temporal :).

haha may be.

p.s.

may be there is nothing to fix in upstream and it was a false alarm
from my side. it's probably logical to expect that arch that bothered
to provide well optimized copy_page() also provides 'equally' optimized
memcpy(). if so, then we should be fine. sorry for the noise.

	-ss



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]