From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergey Senozhatsky Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/28] mm: only allow page table mappings for built-in zsmalloc Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 11:38:45 +0900 Message-ID: <20200410023845.GA2354@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain> References: <20200408115926.1467567-1-hch@lst.de> <20200408115926.1467567-11-hch@lst.de> <20200409160826.GC247701@google.com> <20200409165030.GG20713@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20200409170813.GD247701@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200409170813.GD247701@google.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Minchan Kim Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , "K. Y. Srinivasan" , Haiyang Zhang , Stephen Hemminger , Wei Liu , x86@kernel.org, David Airlie , Daniel Vetter , Laura Abbott , Sumit Semwal , Sakari Ailus , Nitin Gupta , Robin Murphy , Christophe Leroy , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On (20/04/09 10:08), Minchan Kim wrote: > > > Even though I don't know how many usecase we have using zsmalloc as > > > module(I heard only once by dumb reason), it could affect existing > > > users. Thus, please include concrete explanation in the patch to > > > justify when the complain occurs. > > > > The justification is 'we can unexport functions that have no sane reason > > of being exported in the first place'. > > > > The Changelog pretty much says that. > > Okay, I hope there is no affected user since this patch. > If there are someone, they need to provide sane reason why they want > to have zsmalloc as module. I'm one of those who use zsmalloc as a module - mainly because I use zram as a compressing general purpose block device, not as a swap device. I create zram0, mkfs, mount, checkout and compile code, once done - umount, rmmod. This reduces the number of writes to SSD. Some people use tmpfs, but zram device(-s) can be much larger in size. That's a niche use case and I'm not against the patch. -ss From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Sergey Senozhatsky Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 11:38:45 +0900 Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/28] mm: only allow page table mappings for built-in zsmalloc Message-ID: <20200410023845.GA2354@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain> References: <20200408115926.1467567-1-hch@lst.de> <20200408115926.1467567-11-hch@lst.de> <20200409160826.GC247701@google.com> <20200409165030.GG20713@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20200409170813.GD247701@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200409170813.GD247701@google.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Minchan Kim Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , "K. Y. Srinivasan" , Haiyang Zhang , Stephen Hemminger , Wei Liu , x86@kernel.org, David Airlie , Daniel Vetter , Laura Abbott , Sumit Semwal , Sakari Ailus , Nitin Gupta , Robin Murphy , Christophe Leroy , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com List-ID: Message-ID: <20200410023845.VHL5Ufw_c_NPtdvz_F0xBN9WwI72b0xL7JPxaPkGWzE@z> On (20/04/09 10:08), Minchan Kim wrote: > > > Even though I don't know how many usecase we have using zsmalloc as > > > module(I heard only once by dumb reason), it could affect existing > > > users. Thus, please include concrete explanation in the patch to > > > justify when the complain occurs. > > > > The justification is 'we can unexport functions that have no sane reason > > of being exported in the first place'. > > > > The Changelog pretty much says that. > > Okay, I hope there is no affected user since this patch. > If there are someone, they need to provide sane reason why they want > to have zsmalloc as module. I'm one of those who use zsmalloc as a module - mainly because I use zram as a compressing general purpose block device, not as a swap device. I create zram0, mkfs, mount, checkout and compile code, once done - umount, rmmod. This reduces the number of writes to SSD. Some people use tmpfs, but zram device(-s) can be much larger in size. That's a niche use case and I'm not against the patch. -ss