Re: [PATCHv4 0/9] zsmalloc/zram: configurable zspage size

[Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>]

On (22/11/15 15:23), Minchan Kim wrote:
> Sure, if we start talking about battery, that would have a lot of things
> we need to consider not only from zram-direct but also other indirect-stuffs
> caused caused by memory pressure and workload patterns. That's not what we
> can control and would consume much more battery. I understand your concern
> but also think sysfs per-konb can solve the issue since workload is too
> dynamic even in the same swap file/fs, too. I'd like to try finding a
> sweet spot in general. If it's too hard to have, then, we need to introduce
> the knob with reasonable guideline how we could find it.
> 
> Let me try to see the data under Android workload how much just increase
> the ZS_MAX_PAGES_PER_ZSPAGE blindly will change the data.

I don't want to push for sysfs knob.

What I like about sysfs knob vs KConfig is that sysfs is opt-in. We can
ask folks to try things out, people will know what to look at and they
will keep an eye on metrics, then they come back to us. So we can sit
down, look at the numbers and draw some conclusions. KConfig is not
opt-in. It'll happen for everyone, as a policy, transparently and then
we rely on
a) people tracking metrics that they were not asked to track
b) people noticing changes (positive or negative) in metrics that they
   don't keep an eye on
c) people figuring out that change in metrics is related to zsmalloc
   Kconfig (and that's a very non-obvious conclusion)
d) people reaching out to us

That's way too much to rely on. Chances are we will never hear back.

I understand that you don't like sysfs, and it's not the best thing
probably, but KConfig is not better. I like the opt-in nature of
sysfs - if you change it then you know what you are doing.