Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-75980-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJD7tkbRF6od-2x_L8-A1QL3=2Ww13sCj4S3i4bNndqF+3+_Vg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJD7tkbRF6od-2x_L8-A1QL3=2Ww13sCj4S3i4bNndqF+3+_Vg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:23:43 +0700
Message-ID: <CAKEwX=MELnV5uzMg2sR0iLd9jiwe-Z9sTh1dhDRiescrDce5rA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Analyzing zpool allocators / Removing zbud and z3fold
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@konsulko.com>, 
	Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, 
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, 
	Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>, Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, 
	Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>, Seth Jennings <sjenning@redhat.com>, 
	Dan Streetman <ddstreet@ieee.org>, Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 10:27=E2=80=AFAM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>=
 wrote:
>
> I did not perform any sophisticated analysis on these histograms, but
> eyeballing them makes it clear that all allocators have somewhat
> similar latencies. zbud is slightly better than zsmalloc, and z3fold
> is slightly worse than zsmalloc. This corresponds naturally to the
> build times in (a).
>
> (c) Maximum size of the zswap pool
>
> *** zsmalloc ***
> 1,137,659,904 bytes =3D ~1.13G
>
> *** zbud ***
> 1,535,741,952 bytes =3D ~1.5G
>
> *** z3fold ***
> 1,151,303,680 bytes =3D ~1.15G
>
> zbud consumes ~32.7% more memory, and z3fold consumes ~1.8% more
> memory. This makes sense because zbud only stores a maximum of two
> compressed pages on each order-0 page, regardless of the compression
> ratio, so it is bound to consume more memory.
>
> -------------------------------- </Results> -----------------------------=
---
>
> According to those results, it seems like zsmalloc is superior to
> z3fold in both efficiency and latency. Zbud has a small latency
> advantage, but that comes with a huge cost in terms of memory
> consumption. Moreover, most known users of zswap are currently using
> zsmalloc. Perhaps some folks are using zbud because it was the default
> allocator up until recently. The only known disadvantage of zsmalloc
> is the dependency on MMU.
>
> Based on that, I think it doesn't make sense to keep all 3 allocators
> going forward. I believe we should start with removing either zbud or
> z3fold, leaving only one allocator supporting MMU. Once zsmalloc
> supports !MMU (if possible), we can keep zsmalloc as the only
> allocator.
>
> Thoughts and feedback are highly appreciated. I tried to CC all the
> interested folks, but others feel free to chime in.

I already voiced my opinion on the other thread, but to reiterate, my
vote is towards deprecating/removing z3fold :)
Unless someone can present a convincing argument/use case/workload,
where z3fold outshines both zbud and zsmalloc, or at least is another
point on the Pareto front of (latency x memory saving).