On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:29:29AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 29 May 2013 09:57:20 -0500 Seth Jennings <sjenning@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > +/*********************************
> > > > +* helpers
> > > > +**********************************/
> > > > +static inline bool zswap_is_full(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + return (totalram_pages * zswap_max_pool_percent / 100 <
> > > > + zswap_pool_pages);
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > We have had issues in the past where percentage-based tunables were too
> > > coarse on very large machines. For example, a terabyte machine where 0
> > > bytes is too small and 10GB is too large.
> >
> > Yes, this is known limitation of the code right now and it is a high priority
> > to come up with something better. It isn't clear what dynamic sizing policy
> > should be used so, until such time as that policy can be determined, this is a
> > simple stop-gap that works well enough for simple setups.
>
> It's a module parameter and hence is part of the userspace interface.
> It's undesirable that the interface be changed, and it would be rather
> dumb to merge it as-is when we *know* that it will be changed.
>
> I don't think we can remove the parameter altogether (or can we?), so I
> suggest we finalise it ASAP. Perhaps rename it to
> zswap_max_pool_ratio, with a range 1..999999. Better ideas needed :(
zswap_max_pool_ratio is fine with me. I'm not entirely clear on the change
though. Would that just be a name change or a change in meaning?
Also, we can keep the tunable as I imagine there will always be some use for a
manual override of the (future) dynamic policy. When the dynamic policy is
available, we can just say that zswap_max_pool_ratio = 0 means "use dynamic
policy" and change the default to 0. Does that sounds reasonable?
Seth
--
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>