Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] mm/zsmalloc: use a proper page type

[Sergey Senozhatsky]

On (24/06/25 15:33), Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2024 16:32:04 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On 31.05.24 16:27, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 02:01:23PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > >      1409:       83 c0 01                add    $0x1,%eax
> > >                  if (mapcount < PAGE_MAPCOUNT_RESERVE + 1)
> > >      140c:       83 f8 81                cmp    $0xffffff81,%eax
> > >      140f:       7d 63                   jge    1474 <filemap_unaccount_folio+0x8
> > > 4>
> > >          if (folio_test_hugetlb(folio))
> > >      1411:       80 7b 33 84             cmpb   $0x84,0x33(%rbx)
> > >      1415:       74 4e                   je     1465 <filemap_unaccount_folio+0x75>
> > > 
> > > so we go from "mov, and, cmp, je" to just "cmpb, je", which must surely
> > > be faster to execute as well as being more compact in the I$ (6 bytes vs 15).
> > > 
> > > Anyway, not tested but this is the patch I used to generate the above.
> > > More for comment than application.
> > 
> > Right, it's likely very similar to my previous proposal to use 8 bit 
> > (uint8_t) for the type.
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/00ba1dff-7c05-46e8-b0d9-a78ac1cfc198@xxxxxxxxxx/
> > 
> > I would prefer if we would do that separately; unless someone is able to 
> > raise why we care about zram + 256KiB that much right now. (claim: we don't)
> > 
> 
> iow, "this is ok for now", yes?

Perhaps.  I'm not in position to claim that zram + 256KiB PAGE_SIZE is
irrelevant, but I'm also not in position to claim the opposite.

Matthew and David have ideas/proposals/patches to fix it should 256KiB
PAGE_SIZE become an issue.