From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f48.google.com (mail-pa0-f48.google.com [209.85.220.48]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C57E36B007E for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 03:44:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id tt10so151944325pab.3 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 00:44:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pf0-x242.google.com (mail-pf0-x242.google.com. [2607:f8b0:400e:c00::242]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u11si9115768pas.102.2016.03.14.00.44.01 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 14 Mar 2016 00:44:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf0-x242.google.com with SMTP id u190so9246690pfb.2 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 00:44:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 16:45:23 +0900 From: Sergey Senozhatsky Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 2/5] mm/zsmalloc: remove shrinker compaction callbacks Message-ID: <20160314074523.GB542@swordfish> References: <1457016363-11339-1-git-send-email-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> <1457016363-11339-3-git-send-email-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> <20160314063207.GD10675@bbox> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160314063207.GD10675@bbox> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Minchan Kim Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky , Andrew Morton , Joonsoo Kim , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sergey Senozhatsky On (03/14/16 15:32), Minchan Kim wrote: > On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 11:46:00PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > Do not register shrinker compaction callbacks anymore, since > > now we shedule class compaction work each time its fragmentation > > value goes above the watermark. > > I suggested to remove shrinker compaction but while I review your > first patch in this thread, I thought we need upper-bound to > compact zspage so background work can bail out for latency easily. > IOW, the work could give up the job. In such case, we might need > fall-back scheme to continue the job. And I think that could be > a shrinker. > > What do you think? wouldn't this unnecessarily complicate the whole thing? we would have a) a compaction that can be triggered by used space b) a compaction from zs_free() that can bail out c) a compaction triggered by the shrinker. all 3 three can run simultaneously. _if_ we can keep every class below its watermark, we can reduce the need of "c)". -ss -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org