On 09/15/2011 03:24 PM, Seth Jennings wrote: > On 09/15/2011 12:29 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote: >>> From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenning@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] staging: zcache: xcfmalloc support >>> >> >> Seth, I am still not clear why it is not possible to support >> either allocation algorithm, selectable at runtime. Or even >> dynamically... use xvmalloc to store well-compressible pages >> and xcfmalloc for poorly-compressible pages. I understand >> it might require some additional coding, perhaps even an >> ugly hack or two, but it seems possible. > > But why do an ugly hack if we can just use a single allocator > that has the best overall performance for the allocation range > the zcache requires. Why make it more complicated that it > needs to be? > >> I agree with Seth here: a mix of different allocators for the (small) range of sizes which zcache requires, looks like a bad idea to me. Maintaining two allocators is a pain and this will also complicate future plans like compaction etc. Thanks, Nitin -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. 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=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>