[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z5uoek8UA9sFBWvj@google.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2025 16:27:38 +0000
From: Yosry Ahmed <yosry.ahmed@...ux.dev>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv1 4/6] zsmalloc: introduce new object mapping API
On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 12:21:14PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (25/01/29 17:31), Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 03:43:50PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> [..]
> > > The old API will stay around until the remaining users switch
> > > to the new one. After that we'll also remove zsmalloc per-CPU
> > > buffer and CPU hotplug handling.
> >
> > I will propose removing zbud (in addition to z3fold) soon. If that gets
> > in then we'd only need to update zpool and zswap code to use the new
> > API. I can take care of that if you want.
>
> Sounds like a plan. I think I saw zbud deprecation patch (along with z3fold
> removal). I guess you still want to keep zpool, just because it's there
> already?
Now the proposal is to remove zbud right away (patch already sent). If
this lands then our lives become easier.
I am keeping zpool around for now because it is not doing any harm, we
can remove it later. For the zbud/z3fold their presence is a problem due
to bit roting, and having to support new APIs (like this one) in them if
we want to use them unconditionally in zswap.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists