[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210114171855.lzzxwpucpkjyhrch@linutronix.de>
Date:   Thu, 14 Jan 2021 18:18:55 +0100
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     Vitaly Wool <vitaly.wool@...sulko.com>
Cc:     "tiantao (H)" <tiantao6@...wei.com>,
        "Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)" <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, NitinGupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "tiantao (H)" <tiantao6@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: do not use bit_spin_lock
On 2021-01-14 18:15:08 [+0100], Vitaly Wool wrote:
> 
> Basically, yes. Minchan was very clear that he didn't want to remove
> that inter-function locking, so be it.
> I wouldn't really advise to use zsmalloc with zswap because zsmalloc
> has no support for reclaim, nevertheless I wouldn't like this
> configuration to stop working for those who are already using it.
> 
> Would you or Mike be up for testing Tian Taos's patchset?
I will try to reproduce Mike's original report and the fix early next
week.
> Best regards,
>    Vitaly
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
