[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <527BC98B.5060701@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 12:10:35 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
CC: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, lliubbo@...il.com,
jmarchan@...hat.com, mgorman@...e.de, hughd@...gle.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: zsmalloc: Ensure handle is never 0 on success
On 11/07/2013 02:04 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> I'm guilty and I have been busy by other stuff. Sorry for that.
> Fortunately, I discussed this issue with Hugh in this Linuxcon for a
> long time(Thanks Hugh!) he felt zram's block device abstraction is
> better design rather than frontswap backend stuff although it's a question
> where we put zsmalloc. I will CC Hugh because many of things is related
> to swap subsystem and his opinion is really important.
> And I discussed it with Rik and he feel positive about zram.
To clarify that, I agree with Minchan that there are certain
workloads where zram is probably more appropriate than zswap.
For most of the workloads that I am interested in, zswap will
be more interesting, but zram seems to have its own niche, and
I certainly do not want to hold back the embedded folks...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists