On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 1:39 AM, Dan Magenheimer > <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >>> From: Minchan Kim [mailto:minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx] >> >>> As I read your comment, I can't find the benefit of zram compared to >>> frontswap. >> >> Well, I am biased, but I agree that frontswap is a better technical >> solution than zram. ;-) ÂBut "dynamic-ity" is very important to >> me and may be less important to others. >> >> I thought of these other differences, both technical and >> non-technical: >> >> - Zram is minimally invasive to the swap subsystem, requiring only >> Âone hook which is already upstream (though see below) and is >> Âapparently already used by some Linux users. ÂFrontswap is somewhat > > Yes. I think what someone is using it is a problem. > >> Âmore invasive and, UNTIL zcache-was-kztmem was posted a few weeks >> Âago, had no non-Xen users (though some distros are already shipping >> Âthe hooks in their kernels because Xen supports it); as a result, >> Âfrontswap has gotten almost no review by kernel swap subsystem >> Âexperts who I'm guessing weren't interested in anything that >> Ârequired Xen to use... hopefully that barrier is now resolved >> Â(but bottom line is frontswap is not yet upstream). > > That's why I suggested to remove frontswap in this turn. > If any swap experts has a interest, maybe you can't receive any ack or Typo. If any swap experts don't have a interest, -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href