[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YvJcD8xB+OepycKX@google.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 22:07:27 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
minchan@...nel.org, ngupta@...are.org, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
avromanov@...rdevices.ru, ddrokosov@...rdevices.ru,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: ext2/zram issue [was: Linux 5.19]
On (22/08/09 21:57), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> This somehow makes me scratch my head and ask if we really want to
> continue using per-CPU steams. We previously (many years ago) had
> a list of idle compression streams, which would do compression in
> preemptible context and we would have only one zs_malloc handle
> allocation path, which would do direct reclaim (when needed)
Scratch that, I take it back. Sorry for the noise.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists