From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755730Ab1IPRxA (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:53:00 -0400 Received: from mail-vw0-f42.google.com ([209.85.212.42]:47863 "EHLO mail-vw0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753270Ab1IPRw6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:52:58 -0400 Message-ID: <4E738CF6.4020808@vflare.org> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:52:54 -0400 From: Nitin Gupta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Seth Jennings CC: Dan Magenheimer , Greg KH , gregkh@suse.de, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, cascardo@holoscopio.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, brking@linux.vnet.ibm.com, rcj@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] staging: zcache: xcfmalloc support References: <1315404547-20075-1-git-send-email-sjenning@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110909203447.GB19127@kroah.com> <4E6ACE5B.9040401@vflare.org> <4E6E18C6.8080900@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4E6EB802.4070109@vflare.org> <4E6F7DA7.9000706@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4E6FC8A1.8070902@vflare.org 4E72284B.2040907@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <075c4e4c-a22d-47d1-ae98-31839df6e722@default> <4E725109.3010609@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <4E725109.3010609@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/15/2011 03:24 PM, Seth Jennings wrote: > On 09/15/2011 12:29 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote: >>> From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenning@linux.vnet.ibm.com] >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] staging: zcache: xcfmalloc support >>> >> >> Seth, I am still not clear why it is not possible to support >> either allocation algorithm, selectable at runtime. Or even >> dynamically... use xvmalloc to store well-compressible pages >> and xcfmalloc for poorly-compressible pages. I understand >> it might require some additional coding, perhaps even an >> ugly hack or two, but it seems possible. > > But why do an ugly hack if we can just use a single allocator > that has the best overall performance for the allocation range > the zcache requires. Why make it more complicated that it > needs to be? > >> I agree with Seth here: a mix of different allocators for the (small) range of sizes which zcache requires, looks like a bad idea to me. Maintaining two allocators is a pain and this will also complicate future plans like compaction etc. Thanks, Nitin