From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S933836AbcFIBns (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 8 Jun 2016 21:43:48 -0400
Received: from mail-pa0-f65.google.com ([209.85.220.65]:36706 "EHLO
	mail-pa0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751379AbcFIBnr (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 8 Jun 2016 21:43:47 -0400
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 10:43:45 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc: Dan Streetman <ddstreet@ieee.org>, Geliang Tang <geliangtang@gmail.com>,
        Nitin Gupta <ngupta@vflare.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zram: add zpool support
Message-ID: <20160609014345.GB655@swordfish>
References: <d2a7edd5e1f37d9daf4536927d1439df6f9dbd0a.1465378622.git.geliangtang@gmail.com>
 <CALZtONBj0a06T5pxu0AxnyQX8VreuhGxmdg-oMv6w6SJom9wpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160609013411.GA29779@bbox>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160609013411.GA29779@bbox>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hello,

On (06/09/16 10:34), Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 10:51:28AM -0400, Dan Streetman wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 5:39 AM, Geliang Tang <geliangtang@gmail.com> 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.

I'd also probably Cc Vitaly Wool on this

(http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=146537877415982&w=2)

	-ss