From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1425076AbcFIBdJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jun 2016 21:33:09 -0400 Received: from LGEAMRELO13.lge.com ([156.147.23.53]:33859 "EHLO lgeamrelo13.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423067AbcFIBdH (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jun 2016 21:33:07 -0400 X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.125 X-Original-MAILFROM: minchan@kernel.org X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.223.161 X-Original-MAILFROM: minchan@kernel.org Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 10:34:11 +0900 From: Minchan Kim To: Dan Streetman Cc: Geliang Tang , Nitin Gupta , Sergey Senozhatsky , linux-kernel , Linux-MM Subject: Re: [PATCH] zram: add zpool support Message-ID: <20160609013411.GA29779@bbox> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 10:51:28AM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote: > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 5:39 AM, Geliang Tang wrote: > > This patch adds zpool support for zram, it will allow us to use both > > the zpool api and directly zsmalloc api in zram. > > besides the problems below, this was discussed a while ago and I > believe Minchan is still against it, as nobody has so far shown what > the benefit to zram would be; zram doesn't need the predictability, or > evictability, of zbud or z3fold. Right. Geliang, I cannot ack without any *detail* that what's the problem of zram/zsmalloc, why we can't fix it in zsmalloc itself. The zbud and zsmalloc is otally different design to aim different goal determinism vs efficiency so you can choose what you want between zswap and zram rather than mixing the features.