Message-ID: <52E06BA0.4090803@oracle.com>
Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 2014 09:08:48 +0800
From:	Bob Liu <bob.liu@...cle.com>
To:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org>,
	Seth Jennings <sjennings@...iantweb.net>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Weijie Yang <weijie.yang@...sung.com>,
	Shirish Pargaonkar <spargaonkar@...e.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/zswap: add writethrough option


On 01/23/2014 08:18 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:33:58PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 09:19:58 -0500 Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Acutally, I really don't know how much benefit we have that in-memory
>>>>>>> swap overcomming to the real storage but if you want, zRAM with dm-cache
>>>>>>> is another option rather than invent new wheel by "just having is better".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure if this patch is related to the zswap vs. zram discussions.  This
>>>>>> only adds the option of using writethrough to zswap.  It's a first
>>>>>> step to possibly
>>>>>> making zswap work more efficiently using writeback and/or writethrough
>>>>>> depending on
>>>>>> the system and conditions.
>>>>>
>>>>> The patch size is small. Okay I don't want to be a party-pooper
>>>>> but at least, I should say my thought for Andrew to help judging.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, I'm glad to have your suggestions.
>>>
>>> To give this a bump - Andrew do you have any concerns about this
>>> patch?  Or can you pick this up?
>>
>> I don't pay much attention to new features during the merge window,
>> preferring to shove them into a folder to look at later.  Often they
>> have bitrotted by the time -rc1 comes around.
>>
>> I'm not sure that this review discussion has played out yet - is
>> Minchan happy?
> 
> From the beginning, zswap is for reducing swap I/O but if workingset
> overflows, it should write back rather than OOM with expecting a small
> number of writeback would make the system happy because the high memory
> pressure is temporal so soon most of workload would be hit in zswap
> without further writeback.
> 
> If memory pressure continues and writeback steadily, it means zswap's
> benefit would be mitigated, even worse by addding comp/decomp overhead.
> In that case, it would be better to disable zswap, even.
> 
> Dan said writethrough supporting is first step to make zswap smart
> but anybody didn't say further words to step into the smart and
> what's the *real* workload want it and what's the *real* number from
> that because dm-cache/zram might be a good fit.
> (I don't intend to argue zram VS zswap. If the concern is solved by
> existing solution, why should we invent new function and
> have maintenace cost?) so it's very hard for me to judge that we should
> accept and maintain it.
> 

Speak of dm-cache, there are also bcache, flashcache and bcache.

> We need blueprint for the future and make an agreement on the
> direction before merging this patch.
> 
> But code size is not much and Seth already gave an his Ack so I don't
> want to hurt Dan any more(Sorry for Dan) and wasting my time so pass
> the decision to others(ex, Seth and Bob).

Since zswap is a cache layer and write-back and write-through are two
common options for any cache. I'm fine with adding this write-through
option.

Thanks,
-Bob

--
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