On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 01:35:01PM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 03:05:04PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 11:32:01AM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 10:24:05AM -0800, Nhat Pham wrote: > > > > @@ -1444,6 +1473,11 @@ unsigned long zs_malloc(struct zs_pool *pool, size_t size, gfp_t gfp) > > > > > > > > /* We completely set up zspage so mark them as movable */ > > > > SetZsPageMovable(pool, zspage); > > > > +out: > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ZPOOL > > > > + /* Move the zspage to front of pool's LRU */ > > > > + move_to_front(pool, zspage); > > > > +#endif > > > > spin_unlock(&pool->lock); > > > > > > Please move the move_to_front into zs_map_object with ZS_MM_WO with > > > comment with "why we are doing only for WO case". > > > > I replied to the other thread, but I disagree with this request. > > > > The WO exception would be as zswap-specific as is the > > rotate-on-alloc. It doesn't make the resulting zsmalloc code any > > That's true but at least, zs_pool allocators have the accessor so > that's fair place to have the LRU updating. I guess that's why > you agreed that's better place. No? > > I understand that's zswap-specific that the bad design keeps > pushing smelly code into allocators and then "push to take it > since other were already doing" with "we will take them off with > better solution in future". I am really struggling to understand > this concept. Johannes, Is that really how we work over a decade? My point was that there is no difference between having zswap code in alloc or in map. And there is a small upside to having it in alloc because of the other backends. But I won't fight you on it. The code isn't going to stay like this for long anyway.
