lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jun]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] zram: update zram to use zpool
From
Date
On 2016-06-17 04:30, Vitaly Wool wrote:
> Hi Minchan,
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:42:07PM +0800, Geliang Tang wrote:
>>> Change zram to use the zpool api instead of directly using zsmalloc.
>>> The zpool api doesn't have zs_compact() and zs_pool_stats() functions.
>>> I did the following two things to fix it.
>>> 1) I replace zs_compact() with zpool_shrink(), use zpool_shrink() to
>>> call zs_compact() in zsmalloc.
>>> 2) The 'pages_compacted' attribute is showed in zram by calling
>>> zs_pool_stats(). So in order not to call zs_pool_state() I move the
>>> attribute to zsmalloc.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <geliangtang@gmail.com>
>>
>> NACK.
>>
>> I already explained why.
>> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160609013411.GA29779@bbox
>
> This is a fair statement, to a certain extent. I'll let Geliang speak
> for himself but I am personally interested in this zram extension
> because I want it to work on MMU-less systems. zsmalloc can not handle
> that, so I want to be able to use zram over z3fold.
I concur with this.

It's also worth pointing out that people can and do use zram for things
other than swap, so the assumption that zswap is a viable alternative is
not universally correct. In my case for example, I use it on a VM host
for temporary storage for transient SSI VM's. Making it more
deterministic would be seriously helpful in this case, as it would mean
I can more precisely provision resources on this particular system, and
could better account for latencies in the testing these transient VM's
are used for.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-06-17 15:01    [W:0.108 / U:0.424 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site