Hi Konrad,
On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 04:15:42PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 08:41:57AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
>
> Hey Michan,
^-n
It's a only thing I can know better than other native speakers. :)
> Just a couple of syntax corrections. The code comment could also
> benefit from this.
>
> Otherwise it looks OK to me.
>
> > Swap subsystem does lazy swap slot free with expecting the page
> ^-a ^- the expectation that
> > would be swapped out again so we can avoid unnecessary write.
> ^--that it
> >
> > But the problem in in-memory swap(ex, zram) is that it consumes
> ^^-with
> > memory space until vm_swap_full(ie, used half of all of swap device)
> > condition meet. It could be bad if we use multiple swap device,
> ^- 'is' ^^^^^ - 'would' ^^^^^-devices
> > small in-memory swap and big storage swap or in-memory swap alone.
> ^-, ^-,
> >
> > This patch makes swap subsystem free swap slot as soon as swap-read
> > is completed and make the swapcache page dirty so the page should
> ^-makes ^-'that the'
> > be written out the swap device to reclaim it.
> > It means we never lose it.
> >
> > I tested this patch with kernel compile workload.
> ^-a
Thanks for the correct whole sentence!
But Andrew alreay correted it with his style.
Although he was done, I'm giving a million thanks to you.
Surely, Thanks Andrew, too.
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>