ger.kernel.org; de...@driverdev.osuosl.org;
> Kurt Hackel
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
>
> >
> > Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I meant to report this
> > earlier in the week and got tied up by other things.
> >
> > I finally got my test scaffold
;
Kurt Hackel
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I meant to report this
earlier in the week and got tied up by other things.
I finally got my test scaffold set up earlier this week
to try to reproduce my bad numbers with the RHEL6-ish
On 08/17/2012 05:21 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
>> From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenn...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
>>
>> On 08/09/2012 03:20 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote
>>> I also wonder if you have anything el
> From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenn...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
>
> On 08/09/2012 03:20 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote
> > I also wonder if you have anything else unusual in your
> > test setup, such as a fast swap d
From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenn...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
On 08/09/2012 03:20 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote
I also wonder if you have anything else unusual in your
test setup, such as a fast swap disk (mine is a partition
on the same
On 08/17/2012 05:21 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenn...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
On 08/09/2012 03:20 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote
I also wonder if you have anything else unusual in your
test setup, such as a fast swap
On 08/15/2012 04:38 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 01:14:01PM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
>> On 08/09/2012 03:20 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote
>>> I also wonder if you have anything else unusual in your
>>> test setup, such as a fast swap disk (mine is a partition
>>> on
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 01:14:01PM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
> On 08/09/2012 03:20 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote
> > I also wonder if you have anything else unusual in your
> > test setup, such as a fast swap disk (mine is a partition
> > on the same rotating disk as source and target of the kernel
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 01:14:01PM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
On 08/09/2012 03:20 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote
I also wonder if you have anything else unusual in your
test setup, such as a fast swap disk (mine is a partition
on the same rotating disk as source and target of the kernel build,
On 08/15/2012 04:38 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 01:14:01PM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
On 08/09/2012 03:20 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote
I also wonder if you have anything else unusual in your
test setup, such as a fast swap disk (mine is a partition
on the same
Hi Seth,
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:18:57PM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
> On 07/27/2012 01:18 PM, Seth Jennings wrote:
> > zcache is the remaining piece of code required to support in-kernel
> > memory compression. The other two features, cleancache and frontswap,
> > have been promoted to
On 07/27/2012 01:18 PM, Seth Jennings wrote:
> zcache is the remaining piece of code required to support in-kernel
> memory compression. The other two features, cleancache and frontswap,
> have been promoted to mainline in 3.0 and 3.5. This patchset
> promotes zcache from the staging tree to
On 07/27/2012 01:18 PM, Seth Jennings wrote:
zcache is the remaining piece of code required to support in-kernel
memory compression. The other two features, cleancache and frontswap,
have been promoted to mainline in 3.0 and 3.5. This patchset
promotes zcache from the staging tree to
Hi Seth,
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:18:57PM -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
On 07/27/2012 01:18 PM, Seth Jennings wrote:
zcache is the remaining piece of code required to support in-kernel
memory compression. The other two features, cleancache and frontswap,
have been promoted to mainline in
On 08/09/2012 03:20 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote
> I also wonder if you have anything else unusual in your
> test setup, such as a fast swap disk (mine is a partition
> on the same rotating disk as source and target of the kernel build,
> the default install for a RHEL6 system)?
I'm using a normal
On 08/09/2012 03:20 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote
I also wonder if you have anything else unusual in your
test setup, such as a fast swap disk (mine is a partition
on the same rotating disk as source and target of the kernel build,
the default install for a RHEL6 system)?
I'm using a normal SATA
> From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenn...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
>
> On 08/07/2012 03:23 PM, Seth Jennings wrote:
> > On 07/27/2012 01:18 PM, Seth Jennings wrote:
> >> Some benchmarking numbers demonstrating the
On 08/07/2012 03:23 PM, Seth Jennings wrote:
> On 07/27/2012 01:18 PM, Seth Jennings wrote:
>> Some benchmarking numbers demonstrating the I/O saving that can be had
>> with zcache:
>>
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/22/383
>
> There was concern that kernel changes external to zcache since v3.3
On 08/07/2012 03:23 PM, Seth Jennings wrote:
On 07/27/2012 01:18 PM, Seth Jennings wrote:
Some benchmarking numbers demonstrating the I/O saving that can be had
with zcache:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/22/383
There was concern that kernel changes external to zcache since v3.3 may
have
From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenn...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
On 08/07/2012 03:23 PM, Seth Jennings wrote:
On 07/27/2012 01:18 PM, Seth Jennings wrote:
Some benchmarking numbers demonstrating the I/O saving that can be had
with zcache
> From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenn...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
Hi Seth --
Good discussion. Even though we disagree, I appreciate
your enthusiasm and your good work on the kernel!
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
>
> On 08/07/2012 04:47 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
On 08/07/2012 04:47 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> I notice your original published benchmarks [1] include
> N=24, N=28, and N=32, but these updated results do not. Are you planning
> on completing the runs? Second, I now see the numbers I originally
> published for what I thought was the same
On 08/07/2012 04:47 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
I notice your original published benchmarks [1] include
N=24, N=28, and N=32, but these updated results do not. Are you planning
on completing the runs? Second, I now see the numbers I originally
published for what I thought was the same
From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenn...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
Hi Seth --
Good discussion. Even though we disagree, I appreciate
your enthusiasm and your good work on the kernel!
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
On 08/07/2012 04:47 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
I notice your
> From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenn...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
>
> On 07/27/2012 01:18 PM, Seth Jennings wrote:
> > Some benchmarking numbers demonstrating the I/O saving that can be had
> > with zcache:
> >
>
On 07/27/2012 01:18 PM, Seth Jennings wrote:
> Some benchmarking numbers demonstrating the I/O saving that can be had
> with zcache:
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/22/383
There was concern that kernel changes external to zcache since v3.3 may
have mitigated the benefit of zcache. So I re-ran
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 09:38:16AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hi Konrad,
>
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 01:51:42PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 09:19:16AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:58:43AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 09:38:16AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
Hi Konrad,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 01:51:42PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 09:19:16AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:58:43AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
So
On 07/27/2012 01:18 PM, Seth Jennings wrote:
Some benchmarking numbers demonstrating the I/O saving that can be had
with zcache:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/22/383
There was concern that kernel changes external to zcache since v3.3 may
have mitigated the benefit of zcache. So I re-ran my
From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenn...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
On 07/27/2012 01:18 PM, Seth Jennings wrote:
Some benchmarking numbers demonstrating the I/O saving that can be had
with zcache:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/22/383
Hi Dan,
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 09:21:22AM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> > From: Pekka Enberg [mailto:penb...@kernel.org]
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Dan Magenheimer
> > wrote:
> > >
> From: Greg Kroah-Hartman [mailto:gre...@linuxfoundation.org]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
>
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 09:21:22AM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> > I suppose:
> >
> > (E) replace "demo" zcache with new c
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 09:21:22AM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> I suppose:
>
> (E) replace "demo" zcache with new code base and keep it
> in staging for another cycle
>
> is another alternative, but I think gregkh has said no to that.
No I have not. If you all feel that the existing
> From: Pekka Enberg [mailto:penb...@kernel.org]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
>
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Dan Magenheimer
> wrote:
> > IMHO, the fastest way to get the best zcache into the kernel and
> > to distros and users is to th
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Dan Magenheimer
wrote:
> IMHO, the fastest way to get the best zcache into the kernel and
> to distros and users is to throw away the "demo" version, move forward
> to a new solid well-designed zcache code base, and work together to
> build on it. There's still a
> > I think we (that is me, Seth, Minchan, Dan) need to talk to have a good
> > understanding of what each of us thinks are fixups.
> >
> > Would Monday Aug 6th at 1pm EST on irc.freenode.net channel #zcache work
> > for people?
>
> 1pm EST is 2am KST(Korea Standard Time) so it's not good for me.
I think we (that is me, Seth, Minchan, Dan) need to talk to have a good
understanding of what each of us thinks are fixups.
Would Monday Aug 6th at 1pm EST on irc.freenode.net channel #zcache work
for people?
1pm EST is 2am KST(Korea Standard Time) so it's not good for me. :)
I know
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Dan Magenheimer
dan.magenhei...@oracle.com wrote:
IMHO, the fastest way to get the best zcache into the kernel and
to distros and users is to throw away the demo version, move forward
to a new solid well-designed zcache code base, and work together to
build on
From: Pekka Enberg [mailto:penb...@kernel.org]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Dan Magenheimer
dan.magenhei...@oracle.com wrote:
IMHO, the fastest way to get the best zcache into the kernel and
to distros and users is to throw away
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 09:21:22AM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
I suppose:
(E) replace demo zcache with new code base and keep it
in staging for another cycle
is another alternative, but I think gregkh has said no to that.
No I have not. If you all feel that the existing code
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman [mailto:gre...@linuxfoundation.org]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 09:21:22AM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
I suppose:
(E) replace demo zcache with new code base and keep it
in staging for another cycle
Hi Dan,
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 09:21:22AM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
From: Pekka Enberg [mailto:penb...@kernel.org]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Dan Magenheimer
dan.magenhei...@oracle.com wrote:
IMHO, the fastest way to get
; > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 3:00 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:21:50PM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> > > > > > From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sj
Hi Konrad,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 01:51:42PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 09:19:16AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:58:43AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > So in my head I feel that it is Ok to:
> > > 1) address the
Hi Konrad,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 01:51:42PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 09:19:16AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:58:43AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
So in my head I feel that it is Ok to:
1) address the concerns that
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:21:50PM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenn...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
Subject: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
zcache is the remaining piece of code
On 07/31/2012 12:51 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> Would Monday Aug 6th at 1pm EST on irc.freenode.net channel #zcache work
> for people?
I think this is a great idea!
Dan, can you post code as an RFC by tomorrow or Thursday?
We (Rob and I) have the Texas Linux Fest starting Friday.
We need
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 09:19:16AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:58:43AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > So in my head I feel that it is Ok to:
> > 1) address the concerns that zcache has before it is unstaged
> > 2) rip out the two-engine system with a
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:58:43AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> So in my head I feel that it is Ok to:
> 1) address the concerns that zcache has before it is unstaged
> 2) rip out the two-engine system with a one-engine system
>(and see how well it behaves)
> 3) sysfs->debugfs as
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 01:48:29PM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> > From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenn...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
> >
> > Dan,
> >
> > I started writing inline responses to each concern bu
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:54:28AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 02:42:14PM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> > > From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk [mailto:kon...@darnok.org]
> > > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 3:00 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:54:28AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 02:42:14PM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk [mailto:kon...@darnok.org]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
On Fri, Jul
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 01:48:29PM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenn...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
Dan,
I started writing inline responses to each concern but that
was adding more confusion than clarity. I
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:58:43AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
So in my head I feel that it is Ok to:
1) address the concerns that zcache has before it is unstaged
2) rip out the two-engine system with a one-engine system
(and see how well it behaves)
3) sysfs-debugfs as needed
4)
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 09:19:16AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:58:43AM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
So in my head I feel that it is Ok to:
1) address the concerns that zcache has before it is unstaged
2) rip out the two-engine system with a one-engine
On 07/31/2012 12:51 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
Would Monday Aug 6th at 1pm EST on irc.freenode.net channel #zcache work
for people?
I think this is a great idea!
Dan, can you post code as an RFC by tomorrow or Thursday?
We (Rob and I) have the Texas Linux Fest starting Friday.
We need
> From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenn...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
>
> Dan,
>
> I started writing inline responses to each concern but that
> was adding more confusion than clarity. I would like to
> focus the discus
Dan,
I started writing inline responses to each concern but that
was adding more confusion than clarity. I would like to
focus the discussion.
The purpose of this patchset is to discuss the inclusion of
zcache into mainline during the 3.7 merge window. zcache
has been a staging since v2.6.39
Dan,
I started writing inline responses to each concern but that
was adding more confusion than clarity. I would like to
focus the discussion.
The purpose of this patchset is to discuss the inclusion of
zcache into mainline during the 3.7 merge window. zcache
has been a staging since v2.6.39
From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenn...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
Dan,
I started writing inline responses to each concern but that
was adding more confusion than clarity. I would like to
focus the discussion.
:
Let's have this discussion
Hi Seth,
zcache out of staging is rather controversial as you see this thread.
But I believe zram is very mature and code/comment is clean. In addition,
it has lots of real customers in embedded side so IMHO, it would be easy to
promote it firstly. Of course, it will promote zsmalloc which is
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 02:42:14PM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> > From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk [mailto:kon...@darnok.org]
> > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 3:00 PM
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:21:50P
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 02:42:14PM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk [mailto:kon...@darnok.org]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:21:50PM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
From
Hi Seth,
zcache out of staging is rather controversial as you see this thread.
But I believe zram is very mature and code/comment is clean. In addition,
it has lots of real customers in embedded side so IMHO, it would be easy to
promote it firstly. Of course, it will promote zsmalloc which is
> From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk [mailto:kon...@darnok.org]
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 3:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
>
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:21:50PM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> > > From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenn...@linux.vne
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:21:50PM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> > From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenn...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
> > Subject: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
> >
> > zcache is the remaining piece of code required to support in-kernel
> > memo
> From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenn...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
> Subject: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
>
> zcache is the remaining piece of code required to support in-kernel
> memory compression. The other two features, cleancache and frontswap,
> have been promoted
zcache is the remaining piece of code required to support in-kernel
memory compression. The other two features, cleancache and frontswap,
have been promoted to mainline in 3.0 and 3.5. This patchset
promotes zcache from the staging tree to mainline.
Based on the level of activity and
zcache is the remaining piece of code required to support in-kernel
memory compression. The other two features, cleancache and frontswap,
have been promoted to mainline in 3.0 and 3.5. This patchset
promotes zcache from the staging tree to mainline.
Based on the level of activity and
From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenn...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
Subject: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
zcache is the remaining piece of code required to support in-kernel
memory compression. The other two features, cleancache and frontswap,
have been promoted to mainline in 3.0 and 3.5
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:21:50PM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenn...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
Subject: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
zcache is the remaining piece of code required to support in-kernel
memory compression. The other two features
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk [mailto:kon...@darnok.org]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] promote zcache from staging
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:21:50PM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
From: Seth Jennings [mailto:sjenn...@linux.vnet.ibm.com]
Subject: [PATCH 0/4
72 matches
Mail list logo
