From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1750729AbdAWGRz (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 23 Jan 2017 01:17:55 -0500
Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.65]:25683 "EHLO
        szxga02-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750703AbdAWGRy (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 23 Jan 2017 01:17:54 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] zram: extend zero pages to same element pages
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>, Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
References: <1485136523-14325-1-git-send-email-minchan@kernel.org>
 <20170123030222.GB24581@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
 <5fc21686-6f5f-df04-bedf-a361d3c25112@huawei.com>
 <20170123044720.GA11763@bbox> <20170123061350.GE24581@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <Mi.Sophia.Wang@huawei.com>,
        <zhouxiyu@huawei.com>, <weidu.du@huawei.com>,
        <zhangshiming5@huawei.com>, <won.ho.park@huawei.com>
From: zhouxianrong <zhouxianrong@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <93bafc81-b690-dff1-73fc-924d9fd897aa@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:17:23 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170123061350.GE24581@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.142.145.228]
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0),
        refid=str=0001.0A020205.58859FFB.029E,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0,
        ip=0.0.0.0,
        so=2013-06-18 04:22:30,
        dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 2f76dc2d7735ef173cb64f4d9793c638
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

i am not sure as well about reverse hurting cache.

On 2017/1/23 14:13, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 01:47:20PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> When I look at first patch, I wanted to use increment loop but didn't
>> tell to you because that small piece of code is no harmful for readbility
>> to me so I want to keep author's code rather than pointing the trivial
>> which is just matter of preference out.
>>
>> Rather than readiblity, I suspect it might hurt performance and talked
>> with Namhyung but we cannot find anything decremental loop is bad
>> compared to incremental. Rather than, many articles have been said
>> decrement loop is faster like zhouxianrong's mentiond although I don't
>> think it makes marginal difference.
>>
>> Joonsoo, why do you think incremental is faster?
>> zhouxianrong, why do you think decrement loops makes cache problem?
>>
>> I'm okay either way. Just want to know why you guys think about it.
>
> Hmm... I guess that cache prefetcher works better for forward access
> but I'm not sure.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> .
>