Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 23 Nov 2022 13:13:55 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
To:     Aleksey Romanov <AVRomanov@sberdevices.ru>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        "minchan@kernel.org" <minchan@kernel.org>,
        "ngupta@vflare.org" <ngupta@vflare.org>,
        "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel <kernel@sberdevices.ru>,
        Dmitry Rokosov <DDRokosov@sberdevices.ru>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] Introduce merge identical pages mechanism
Message-ID: <Y32eA93V7w1Wu3VH@google.com>
References: <20221121190020.66548-1-avromanov@sberdevices.ru>
 <Y3vjQ7VJYUEWl2uc@cmpxchg.org>
 <Y3w7VP5CKvm6XmoJ@google.com>
 <Y3w8/q/HoSbqamoD@google.com>
 <20221122121413.ssieckg523urj37h@cab-wsm-0029881.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221122121413.ssieckg523urj37h@cab-wsm-0029881.lan>
Precedence: bulk

On (22/11/22 12:14), Aleksey Romanov wrote:
> > IIRC that was patent in question:
> > 
> > https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e2/66/9e/0ddbfae5c182ac/US9977598.pdf
> 
> I think the patent is talking about "mapping the virtual address" (like
> in KSM). But zram works with the "handle" abstraction, which is a boxed
> pointer to the required object. I think my implementation and the patent
> is slightly different. 
> 
> Also, the patent speaks of "compressing" pages. In this case, we can add
> zs_merge() function (like zs_compact()), that is, remove the merge logic
> at the allocator level. zsmalloc doesn't say anything about what objects
> it can work with. Implementation at the zsmalloc level is possible,
> though more complicated that at the zram level. 
> 
> I believe that we can implement at least one of the options I proposed.
> 
> What do you think?

Oh, yeah, I'm not saying that we cannot have something like that
in zram/zsmalloc, just wanted to give some historical retrospective
on this and point at some implementation details that should be
considered.