Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-212515-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 12:17:31 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
To: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@kernel.org>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zram: use copy_page for full page copy
Message-ID: <20240613031731.GB479513@google.com>
References: <20240613000422.1918-1-jszhang@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240613000422.1918-1-jszhang@kernel.org>

On (24/06/13 08:04), Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> commit 42e99bd975fd ("zram: optimize memory operations with
> clear_page()/copy_page()") optimize page copy/clean operations, but
> then commit d72e9a7a93e4 ("zram: do not use copy_page with non-page
> aligned address") removes the optimization because there's memory
> corruption at that time, the reason was well explained. But after
> commit 1f7319c74275 ("zram: partial IO refactoring"), partial IO uses
> alloc_page() instead of kmalloc to allocate a page, so we can bring
> back the optimization.
> 
> commit 80ba4caf8ba9 ("zram: use copy_page for full page copy") brings
> back partial optimization, missed one point in zram_write_page().
> optimize the full page copying in zram_write_page() with copy_page()

Is copy_page() really more optimal than memcpy(PAGE_SIZE)?