> From: Minchan Kim [mailto:minchan@xxxxxxxxxx] > Subject: Re: zsmalloc defrag (Was: [PATCH] mm: remove compressed copy from zram in-memory) > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:37:47PM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote: > > > From: Minchan Kim [mailto:minchan@xxxxxxxxxx] > > > Subject: Re: zsmalloc defrag (Was: [PATCH] mm: remove compressed copy from zram in-memory) > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 10:27:19AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 09:32:38AM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote: > > > > > > From: Minchan Kim [mailto:minchan@xxxxxxxxxx] > > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 12:01 AM > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH] mm: remove compressed copy from zram in-memory > > > > > > > > > > (patch removed) > > > > > > > > > > > Fragment ratio is almost same but memory consumption and compile time > > > > > > is better. I am working to add defragment function of zsmalloc. > > > > > > > > > > Hi Minchan -- > > > > > > > > > > I would be very interested in your design thoughts on > > > > > how you plan to add defragmentation for zsmalloc. In > > > > > > > > What I can say now about is only just a word "Compaction". > > > > As you know, zsmalloc has a transparent handle so we can do whatever > > > > under user. Of course, there is a tradeoff between performance > > > > and memory efficiency. I'm biased to latter for embedded usecase. > > > > > > > > And I might post it because as you know well, zsmalloc > > > > > > Incomplete sentense, > > > > > > I might not post it until promoting zsmalloc because as you know well, > > > zsmalloc/zram's all new stuffs are blocked into staging tree. > > > Even if we could add it into staging, as you know well, staging is where > > > every mm guys ignore so we end up needing another round to promote it. sigh. > > > > > > I hope it gets better after LSF/MM. > > > > If zsmalloc is moving in the direction of supporting only zram, > > why should it be promoted into mm, or even lib? Why not promote > > zram into drivers and put zsmalloc.c in the same directory? > > I don't want to make zsmalloc zram specific and will do best effort > to generalize it to all z* familiy. I'm glad to hear that. You may not know/remember that the split between "old zcache" and "new zcache" (and the fork to zswap) was started because some people refused to accept changes to zsmalloc to support a broader set of requirements. > If it is hard to reach out > agreement, yes, forking could be a easy solution like other embedded > product company but I don't want it. I don't want it either, so I think it is wise for us all to understand each others' objectives to see if we can avoid a fork. Or if the objectives are too different, then we have data to explain to other kernel developers why a fork is necessary. Thanks! Dan -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href