From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] zram: use zram_slot_lock instead of raw bit_spin_lock op
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:06:32 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170403080632.GB17309@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170403063420.GA7713@bbox>
On (04/03/17 15:34), Minchan Kim wrote:
[..]
> > c) spin_locks probably have better fairness guarantees
>
> In fact, it wouldn't be an imporant because zram's slot lock contention
> is not heavy.
mostly agree. I think (and I may be mistaken) direct IO
causes contention; but direct IO is probably not a usual
zram workload.
> > what do you think? can we, in this patch set, also replce bit
> > spin_locks with a normal spin_lock?
>
> With changing only zram side from bit_spin_lock to spin_lock,
> it would be crippled. I mean zsmalloc should be changed, too
> and it's really hard. :(
hm, good point.
-ss
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-03 8:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-03 5:17 [PATCH 0/5] zram clean up Minchan Kim
2017-04-03 5:17 ` [PATCH 1/5] zram: handle multiple pages attached bio's bvec Minchan Kim
2017-04-03 22:45 ` Andrew Morton
2017-04-03 23:13 ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-04 4:55 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2017-04-03 5:17 ` [PATCH 2/5] zram: partial IO refactoring Minchan Kim
2017-04-03 5:52 ` Mika Penttilä
2017-04-03 6:12 ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-03 6:57 ` Mika Penttilä
2017-04-04 2:17 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2017-04-04 4:50 ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-03 5:17 ` [PATCH 3/5] zram: use zram_slot_lock instead of raw bit_spin_lock op Minchan Kim
2017-04-03 6:08 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2017-04-03 6:34 ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-03 8:06 ` Sergey Senozhatsky [this message]
2017-04-04 2:18 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2017-04-04 4:50 ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-03 5:17 ` [PATCH 4/5] zram: remove zram_meta structure Minchan Kim
2017-04-04 2:31 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2017-04-04 4:52 ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-04 5:40 ` Minchan Kim
2017-04-04 5:54 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2017-04-03 5:17 ` [PATCH 5/5] zram: introduce zram data accessor Minchan Kim
2017-04-04 4:40 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2017-04-11 5:38 ` [PATCH 0/5] zram clean up Minchan Kim
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170403080632.GB17309@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain \
--to=sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kernel-team@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).