From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63949C48BE8 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 22:02:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0CF361284 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 22:02:52 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org F0CF361284 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 4166C6B006E; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 18:02:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 3C5606B0070; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 18:02:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 23F016B0072; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 18:02:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0188.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.188]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E53106B006E for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 18:02:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin22.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 768BB381E for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 22:02:51 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78268220142.22.D742B38 Received: from mail-pj1-f47.google.com (mail-pj1-f47.google.com [209.85.216.47]) by imf06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 201BAC00F797 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 22:02:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pj1-f47.google.com with SMTP id g6-20020a17090adac6b029015d1a9a6f1aso7828790pjx.1 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 15:02:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=D+d95UFbto6KXdVd780meGT/TKamJEDF0mnEvN0JNDg=; b=X8rlseAwjYPGPDK0H2ZNAkFuY3/RNYiE3elogj4FmPGQFys9B3d7RoCIaJJuISqm/c Ke7xUdgt7PNMNbWM8/1Y2KJQyMOx+rDTKwBxWRWH2rOObj4Oj33180/D/jyLT5ywbXCT jRxtPgyy0qpU/SLu6C6LMFNCChycK6rYAn1q6pw2iiMhqyqa66npEEI9bRmlHyryrFZO tcG2YjPluLljoCrvuU8ehkygSeIdmQ0vto01R1utba2n4ENH3dOywFGAF4eBq0hEMITz bhxODZ3aUsl+NdNY+9V2pvhqwvONx784lNs6g+2eihcJodxnj7SXjpOdnyS7CH9SSt9f W6gw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=D+d95UFbto6KXdVd780meGT/TKamJEDF0mnEvN0JNDg=; b=VRxYz+K8Sm/VTE04Ddi5/6Nzj+Iqt8VOrlNgZT87q/IMVhdXAijNUb5+vjY8hhK6Q0 HC8wvcvfZ12j6cQLzZYQB5RKOMPlqaVxdXmgcstEFdPJ7kI2r1FZG6F9BD4ctcRysVrF pVOJV6u8fd7ujYYGHFEjJMb01/zNhK7Lxf/wmjlTmAeeMumsVX86CGye/JBgkpbVzll9 zkCP53otjahKyLQP5VftxIGZkSy3ukSHRxzSFJW2YmrVqz/tMNa1ElXhn61igT9iZxOY FyDCPoFZFBu9i3rs6laJMWl5/uMWlMjVNUHR6w1pbTwmUV6Cqq5xQ5R0rxLYc91pd06U KPjQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533C5g5FRMgzIUl7SvRHYkrV+1ZAL/e7medAQD0g5UvHJ/C1Go55 N8oVPTzGdViReIYw9PoTAwdLqrcU9uX9yw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzVVXF93+4vNa6tkKMZXjgyxTMobN3PBpgnbX2TrCPQ0Yp/kKxDfK7FfU4aNdZjqJO7UZ0syA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:3b92:: with SMTP id pc18mr12952663pjb.100.1624053770099; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 15:02:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com (c-67-188-94-199.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [67.188.94.199]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y8sm3644306pfe.162.2021.06.18.15.02.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 18 Jun 2021 15:02:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 15:02:47 -0700 From: Minchan Kim To: Huangzhaoyang Cc: Andrew Morton , Zhaoyang Huang , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nitin Gupta , Sergey Senozhatsky Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: zram: amend SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT on zspage_cachep Message-ID: References: <1623137297-29685-1-git-send-email-huangzhaoyang@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1623137297-29685-1-git-send-email-huangzhaoyang@gmail.com> Authentication-Results: imf06.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=X8rlseAw; spf=pass (imf06.hostedemail.com: domain of minchankim@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.47 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=minchankim@gmail.com; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), DKIM not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=kernel.org (policy=none) X-Stat-Signature: fdfd5oobpj57e3cy1y7f1tn4ijuaws5f X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 201BAC00F797 X-Rspamd-Server: rspam06 X-HE-Tag: 1624053771-615350 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 03:28:17PM +0800, Huangzhaoyang wrote: > From: Zhaoyang Huang > > Zspage_cachep is found be merged with other kmem cache during test, which > is not good for debug things(zs_pool->zspage_cachep present to be another > kmem cache in memory dumpfile). It is also neccessary to do so as shrinker has It's not a only problem of zsmalloc because slab want to minimize fragmentation so try to merge several objects if it's allowed. So I don't think it's particular problem of zsmalloc. I guess slub has some option maybe "nomerge" if you want it. > been registered for zspage. Amending this flag can help kernel to calculate > SLAB_RECLAIMBLE correctly. > > Signed-off-by: Zhaoyang Huang > --- > mm/zsmalloc.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/mm/zsmalloc.c b/mm/zsmalloc.c > index 19b563b..0b0addd 100644 > --- a/mm/zsmalloc.c > +++ b/mm/zsmalloc.c > @@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ static int create_cache(struct zs_pool *pool) > return 1; > > pool->zspage_cachep = kmem_cache_create("zspage", sizeof(struct zspage), > - 0, 0, NULL); > + 0, SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT, NULL); How does zspage become SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT? I took the flag as "cacheable" object. IOW, when the shrinker ask to reclaim the object, it should reclaim(e.g., discarding) those objects for reclaming. However, that's not the case in zsmalloc.