On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:53:17PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (10/15/15 11:29), Minchan Kim wrote: > [..] > > I'm in favor of removing shrinker disable feature with this patch( > > although we didn't implement it yet) because if there is some problem > > of compaction, we should reveal and fix it without hiding with the > > feature. > > > > sure. > > > One thing I want is if we decide it, let's remove all things > > about shrinker_enabled(ie, variable). > > If we might need it later, we could introduce it easily. > > well, do we really want to make the shrinker a vital part of zsmalloc? > > it's not that we will tighten the dependency between zsmalloc and > shrinker, we will introduce it instead. in a sense that, at the moment, > zsmalloc is, let's say, ignorant to shrinker registration errors > (shrinker registration implementation is internal to shrinker), because > there is no direct impact on zsmalloc functionality -- zsmalloc will not > be able to release some pages (there are if-s here: first, zsmalloc > shrinker callback may even not be called; second, zsmalloc may not be > albe to migrate objects and release objects). > > no really strong opinion against, but at the same time zsmalloc will > have another point of failure (again, zsmalloc should not be aware of > shrinker registration implementation and why it may fail). > > so... I can prepare a new patch later today. I misunderstood your description. I thought you wanted to remove codes for disabling auto-compaction by user because I really don't want it like same reason of VM's compaction. My bad. You woke up my brain, I remember the reason. Thanks. Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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>