On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 05:10:22PM +0200, Jerome Marchand wrote:
> On 09/23/2014 11:17 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:56:02 +0900 Minchan Kim <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>>> +#define ZRAM_FULLNESS_PERCENT 80
> >>>
> >>> We've had problems in the past where 1% is just too large an increment
> >>> for large systems.
> >>
> >> So, do you want fullness_bytes like dirty_bytes?
> >
> > Firstly I'd like you to think about whether we're ever likely to have
> > similar granularity problems with this tunable. If not then forget
> > about it.
> >
> > If yes then we should do something. I don't like the "bytes" thing
> > much because it requires that the operator know the pool size
> > beforehand, and any time that changes, the "bytes" needs hanging too.
> > Ratios are nice but percent is too coarse. Maybe kernel should start
> > using "ppm" for ratios, parts per million. hrm.
>
> An other possibility is to use decimal fractions. AFAIK, lustre fs uses
> them already for its procfs entries.
Looks good to me. If anyone doesn't have better idea or objection,
I want to approach this way.
Thanks for the hint!
>
> >
> >>>> @@ -711,6 +732,7 @@ static void zram_reset_device(struct zram *zram,
> >>>> bool reset_capacity)
> >>>> down_write(&zram->init_lock);
> >>>>
> >>>> zram->limit_pages = 0;
> >>>> + atomic_set(&zram->alloc_fail, 0);
> >>>>
> >>>> if (!init_done(zram)) {
> >>>> up_write(&zram->init_lock);
> >>>> @@ -944,6 +966,34 @@ static int zram_slot_free_notify(struct
> >>>> block_device *bdev,
> >>>> return 0;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> +static int zram_full(struct block_device *bdev, void *arg)
> >>>
> >>> This could return a bool. That implies that zram_swap_hint should
> >>> return bool too, but as we haven't been told what the zram_swap_hint
> >>> return value does, I'm a bit stumped.
> >>
> >> Hmm, currently, SWAP_FREE doesn't use return and SWAP_FULL uses return
> >> as bool so in the end, we can change it as bool but I want to remain it
> >> as int for the future. At least, we might use it as propagating error
> >> in future. Instead, I will use *arg to return the result instead of
> >> return val. But I'm not strong so if you want to remove return val,
> >> I will do it. For clarifictaion, please tell me again if you want.
> >
> > I'm easy, as long as it makes sense, is understandable by people other
> > than he-who-wrote-it and doesn't use argument names such as "arg".
> >
> >
>
>
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
