> From: Greg KH [mailto:gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging/zcache: Fix/improve zcache writeback code, tie to a config option > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 01:43:58PM -0800, Dan Magenheimer wrote: > > > From: Greg KH [mailto:gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > > > So, how about this, please draw up a specific plan for how you are going > > > to get this code out of drivers/staging/ I want to see the steps > > > involved, who is going to be doing the work, and who you are going to > > > have to get to agree with your changes to make it happen. > > > : > > > Yeah, a plan, I know it goes against normal kernel development > > > procedures, but hey, we're in our early 20's now, it's about time we > > > started getting responsible. > > > > Hi Greg -- > > > > I'm a big fan of planning, though a wise boss once told me: > > "Plans fail... planning succeeds". > > > > So here's the plan I've been basically trying to pursue since about > > ten months ago, ignoring the diversion due to "zcache1 vs zcache2" > > from last summer. There is no new functionality on this plan > > other than as necessary from feedback obtained at or prior to > > LSF/MM in April 2012. > > > > Hope this meets your needs, and feedback welcome! > > Dan > > > > ======= > > > > ** ZCACHE PLAN FOR PROMOTION FROM STAGING ** > > > > PLAN STEPS > > > > 1. merge zcache and ramster to eliminate horrible code duplication > > 2. converge on a predictable, writeback-capable allocator > > 3. use debugfs instead of sysfs (per akpm feedback in 2011) > > 4. zcache side of cleancache/mm WasActive patch > > 5. zcache side of frontswap exclusive gets > > 6. zcache must be able to writeback to physical swap disk > > (per Andrea Arcangeli feedback in 2011) > > 7. implement adequate policy for writeback > > 8. frontswap/cleancache work to allow zcache to be loaded > > as a module > > 9. get core mm developer to review > > 10. incorporate feedback from review > > 11. get review/acks from 1-2 additional mm developers > > 12. incorporate any feedback from additional mm reviews > > 13. propose location/file-naming in mm tree > > 14. repeat 9-13 as necessary until akpm is happy and merges > > > > STATUS/OWNERSHIP > > > > 1. DONE as part of "new" zcache; now in staging/zcache > > 2. DONE as part of "new" zcache (cf zbud.[ch]); now in staging/zcache > > (this was the core of the zcache1 vs zcache2 flail) > > 3. DONE as part of "new" zcache; now in staging/zcache > > 4. DONE as part of "new" zcache; per cleancache performance > > feedback see https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/17/351, now > > in staging/zcache; dependent on proposed mm patch, see > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/25/300 > > 5. DONE as part of "new" zcache; performance tuning only, > > now in staging/zcache; dependent on frontswap patch > > merged in 3.7 (33c2a174) > > 6. PROTOTYPED as part of "new" zcache; protoype is now > > in staging/zcache but has bad memory leak; reimplemented > > to use sjennings clever tricks and proposed mm patches > > with new version posted https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/6/437; > > rejected by GregKH as it smells like new functionality > > > > (******** YOU ARE HERE *********) > > > > 7. PROTOTYPED as part of "new" zcache; now in staging/zcache; > > needs more review (plan to discuss at LSF/MM 2013) > > 8. IN PROGRESS; owned by Konrad Wilk; v2 recently posted > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/1/542 > > 9. IN PROGRESS; owned by Konrad Wilk; Mel Gorman provided > > great feedback in August 2012 (unfortunately of "old" > > zcache) > > 10. Konrad posted series of fixes (that now need rebasing) > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/1/566 > > 11. NOT DONE; owned by Konrad Wilk > > 12. TBD (depends on quantity of feedback) > > 13. PROPOSED; one suggestion proposed by Dan; needs > > more ideas/feedback > > 14. TBD (depends on feedback) > > > > WHO NEEDS TO AGREE > > > > Not sure I can answer that. Seth seems to now be pursuing > > a separate but semi-parallel track. Akpm clearly has to > > approve for any mm merge to happen. Minchan has interest > > but may be happy if/when zram is merged into mm. Konrad > > may be maintainer if akpm decides compression is maintainable > > separately from the rest of mm. (More LSF/MM 2013 discussion.) > > Thanks so much for this, this looks great. > > So, according to your plan, I shouldn't have rejected those patches, > right? :) > > If so, please resend them in the next day or so, so that they can get > into 3.9, and then you can move on to the next steps of what you need to > do here. > > Sound good? Excellent. Thanks very much. Resend coming right up! Dan _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
