From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qa0-f48.google.com (mail-qa0-f48.google.com [209.85.216.48]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0A756B0035 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 17:42:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id m5so128902qaj.35 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:42:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-x22a.google.com (mail-qc0-x22a.google.com [2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22a]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u1si2598419qat.30.2014.08.27.14.42.53 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:42:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f170.google.com with SMTP id r5so79385qcx.15 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:42:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:42:52 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: compaction of zspages From: Luigi Semenzato Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: linux-mm@kvack.org, Minchan Kim Cc: Slava Malyugin , Sonny Rao Hello Minchan and others, I just noticed that the data structures used by zsmalloc have the potential to tie up memory unnecessarily. I don't call it "leaking" because that memory can be reused, but it's not necessarily returned to the system upon freeing. I have no idea if this has any impact in practice, but I plan to run a test in the near future. Also, I am not sure that doing compaction in the shrinkers (as planned according to a comment) is the best approach, because the shrinkers won't be called unless there is considerable pressure, but the compaction would be more effective when there is less pressure. Some more detail here: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=408221 Should I open a bug on some other tracker? Thank you very much! Luigi -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org