Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] zsmalloc: chain-length configuration should consider other metrics

[Yosry Ahmed <yosry.ahmed@linux.dev>]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 02:07:24PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (26/01/12 13:01), Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2026 at 04:02:51PM +0000, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > 
> > > Herbert, do you mind taking a look at this? It looks sane to me except
> > > for one question below.
> > 
> > Looks alright to me too.
> > 
> > > > +		size_t sizes[2];
> > > > +
> > > > +		/* this object spans two pages */
> > > > +		sizes[0] = PAGE_SIZE - off;
> > > > +		sizes[1] = mem_len - sizes[0];
> > > > +
> > > > +		sg_init_table(sg, 2);
> > > > +		sg_set_page(sg, zpdesc_page(zpdesc), sizes[0], off);
> > > > +
> > > > +		zpdesc = get_next_zpdesc(zpdesc);
> > > > +		sg = sg_next(sg);
> > > 
> > > Is this stateful? Will the SG list be returned pointing at the second
> > > page now?
> > 
> > It makes no difference because we just called sg_init_table(sg, 2),
> > so sg_next(sg) is equivalent to &sg[1].
> 
> I did it this way for (sort of) consistency: sg next follows zpdesc next.

Makes sense, I think I confused myself earlier. Do you plan to switch
the existing interfaces to use SG lists for both zswap and zram? Or does
zram still need the old interfaces?