From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 047E1ECE587 for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 11:53:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D02C8207FF for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 11:53:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="bp7tU3Oz" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731687AbfJNLxM (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Oct 2019 07:53:12 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-f65.google.com ([209.85.167.65]:44289 "EHLO mail-lf1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730493AbfJNLxK (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Oct 2019 07:53:10 -0400 Received: by mail-lf1-f65.google.com with SMTP id q12so11567100lfc.11 for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 04:53:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ffAwOpYyYrijKov93vskz3rGkU2NebUE5qWk+Iqkotc=; b=bp7tU3OzDe4CTQbmgPP07OB7D4YSsaiHPA6sa07+XUUV7hdtG4WYf9P8arfVZQlhnA vrJvHWIaUPmqZ70WJSSIK8PV2gDAS0RAWDRJGZwuIf6p3jnwHASNK6MO34XslL9TkqAh QA/86GDpidMckLw4ZR5aLFDzYKx4ksI4UClAK81tfbOfbwJIggpT2//8hid6C8xO4879 lRHS2AFFfpre8USlRmOLFsZQ30Xiybm/hLzCVKnCr50spa8WbkWOJf4jPEkD47zm7/d4 ljQVhuGXwkbjGJIv7cw1oYcQwnJQkiZf08cCcSlWCI+jPP357xq+mUG+usjBQA458KLJ KkDw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ffAwOpYyYrijKov93vskz3rGkU2NebUE5qWk+Iqkotc=; b=o2e2wcUqvvqDu85bd5IhHoPDFDPbTePh9KZ1anE/LLie+yC7qxwrmWHboJkUBySBRO TACCffEIWijFN//hQRB0NtINgXJ+iZvjd8kx5kz9u9oHsbV5aKsy69iZx0wCTYZVpFp7 pSh7qZSPKqEiLw4zrCmWooVgH5871J0DAIG3LZBAqrD+Q1ojN0wXkPYkq0t3r3SGtndR 0ngsU3TCDW5x3wnmZpwLia2KIChKj9N5TpiV+IcJ7D78GNp6wNVnKYgLoLwaUs88R/RL m6H09Q3eNPHT+dp4IrCCR+BjUyPXq++WImnsSw3tXvH1ZYUDZqo1L5/Zg8UqGqYgOU/X hDGg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW5x2V2iiBS7fQNuW6d2TWQWiKqHOj8QpaSrSTSpNqittAaNlFz m/P2h1iMcFDo5suRd0leQdaLg92S8ffP6WRrG40= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyQfkmDe5HAPPqmXflupWahYj+TJRfGIhzhs0YCH/rYiX5Tsu3NcTIyZ+4PsNnhrmjfgT6yRwVCXpaLts3McDE= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:51a6:: with SMTP id f6mr3063582lfk.164.1571053988636; Mon, 14 Oct 2019 04:53:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191010230414.647c29f34665ca26103879c4@gmail.com> <20191010232030.af6444879413e76a780cd27e@gmail.com> <20191014104717.GA43868@jagdpanzerIV> In-Reply-To: <20191014104717.GA43868@jagdpanzerIV> From: Vitaly Wool Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 13:52:57 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] zram: use common zpool interface To: Sergey Senozhatsky Cc: Linux-MM , Andrew Morton , Dan Streetman , Minchan Kim , LKML , Vlastimil Babka , Shakeel Butt , Henry Burns , "Theodore Ts'o" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 12:49 PM Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > On (10/10/19 23:20), Vitaly Wool wrote: > [..] > > static const char *default_compressor = "lzo-rle"; > > > > +#define BACKEND_PAR_BUF_SIZE 32 > > +static char backend_par_buf[BACKEND_PAR_BUF_SIZE]; > > We can have multiple zram devices (zram0 .. zramN), I guess it > would make sense not to force all devices to use one particular > allocator (e.g. see comp_algorithm_store()). > > If the motivation for the patch set is that zsmalloc does not > perform equally well for various data access patterns, then the > same is true for any other allocator. Thus, I think, we need to > have a per-device 'allocator' knob. We were thinking here in per-SoC terms basically, but this is a valid point. Since zram has a well-established sysfs per-device configuration interface, backend choice better be moved there. Agree? ~Vitaly