On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 5:56 PM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2021-01-14 17:29:37 [+0100], Vitaly Wool wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Jan 2021, 17:18 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior, > > <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On 2020-12-23 19:25:02 [+0100], Vitaly Wool wrote: > > > > > write the following patch according to your idea, what do you think ? > > > > > > > > Yep, that is basically what I was thinking of. Some nitpicks below: > > > > > > Did this go somewhere? The thread just ends here on my end. > > > Mike, is this patch fixing / helping your case in anyway? > > > > Please see > > * https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=160889419514019&w=2 > > * https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=160889418114011&w=2 > > * https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=160889448814057&w=2 > > Thank you, that would be > 1608894171-54174-1-git-send-email-tiantao6@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > for b4 compatibility :) > > > Haven't had time to test these yet but seem to be alright. > > So zs_map_object() still disables preemption but the mutex part is > avoided by the patch? Basically, yes. Minchan was very clear that he didn't want to remove that inter-function locking, so be it. I wouldn't really advise to use zsmalloc with zswap because zsmalloc has no support for reclaim, nevertheless I wouldn't like this configuration to stop working for those who are already using it. Would you or Mike be up for testing Tian Taos's patchset? Best regards, Vitaly
