On wto, 2013-10-01 at 16:04 -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
> Yes, it is very similar. I'm beginning to like aspects of this patch
> more as I explore this issue more.
>
> At first, I balked at the idea of yet another abstraction layer, but it
> is very hard to avoid unless you want to completely
On wto, 2013-10-01 at 16:04 -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
Yes, it is very similar. I'm beginning to like aspects of this patch
more as I explore this issue more.
At first, I balked at the idea of yet another abstraction layer, but it
is very hard to avoid unless you want to completely
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:28:46AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On pią, 2013-09-27 at 17:00 -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
> > I have to say that when I first came up with the idea, I was thinking
> > the address space would be at the zswap layer and the radix slots would
> > hold zbud
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:28:46AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On pią, 2013-09-27 at 17:00 -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
I have to say that when I first came up with the idea, I was thinking
the address space would be at the zswap layer and the radix slots would
hold zbud handles, not
On pią, 2013-09-27 at 17:00 -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
> I have to say that when I first came up with the idea, I was thinking
> the address space would be at the zswap layer and the radix slots would
> hold zbud handles, not struct page pointers.
>
> However, as I have discovered today, this is
On pią, 2013-09-27 at 17:00 -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
I have to say that when I first came up with the idea, I was thinking
the address space would be at the zswap layer and the radix slots would
hold zbud handles, not struct page pointers.
However, as I have discovered today, this is
On 09/28/2013 06:00 AM, Seth Jennings wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:16:37PM +0200, Tomasz Stanislawski wrote:
>> On 09/25/2013 11:57 PM, Seth Jennings wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 07:09:50PM +0200, Tomasz Stanislawski wrote:
> I just had an idea this afternoon to potentially kill
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:16:37PM +0200, Tomasz Stanislawski wrote:
> On 09/25/2013 11:57 PM, Seth Jennings wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 07:09:50PM +0200, Tomasz Stanislawski wrote:
> >>> I just had an idea this afternoon to potentially kill both these birds
> >>> with one
> >>> stone:
On 09/25/2013 11:57 PM, Seth Jennings wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 07:09:50PM +0200, Tomasz Stanislawski wrote:
>>> I just had an idea this afternoon to potentially kill both these birds with
>>> one
>>> stone: Replace the rbtree in zswap with an address_space.
>>>
>>> Each swap type would
On 09/25/2013 11:57 PM, Seth Jennings wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 07:09:50PM +0200, Tomasz Stanislawski wrote:
I just had an idea this afternoon to potentially kill both these birds with
one
stone: Replace the rbtree in zswap with an address_space.
Each swap type would have its own
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:16:37PM +0200, Tomasz Stanislawski wrote:
On 09/25/2013 11:57 PM, Seth Jennings wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 07:09:50PM +0200, Tomasz Stanislawski wrote:
I just had an idea this afternoon to potentially kill both these birds
with one
stone: Replace the rbtree
On 09/28/2013 06:00 AM, Seth Jennings wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:16:37PM +0200, Tomasz Stanislawski wrote:
On 09/25/2013 11:57 PM, Seth Jennings wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 07:09:50PM +0200, Tomasz Stanislawski wrote:
I just had an idea this afternoon to potentially kill both these
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 07:09:50PM +0200, Tomasz Stanislawski wrote:
> > I just had an idea this afternoon to potentially kill both these birds with
> > one
> > stone: Replace the rbtree in zswap with an address_space.
> >
> > Each swap type would have its own page_tree to organize the
> I just had an idea this afternoon to potentially kill both these birds with
> one
> stone: Replace the rbtree in zswap with an address_space.
>
> Each swap type would have its own page_tree to organize the compressed objects
> by type and offset (radix tree is more suited for this anyway) and
I just had an idea this afternoon to potentially kill both these birds with
one
stone: Replace the rbtree in zswap with an address_space.
Each swap type would have its own page_tree to organize the compressed objects
by type and offset (radix tree is more suited for this anyway) and a_ops
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 07:09:50PM +0200, Tomasz Stanislawski wrote:
I just had an idea this afternoon to potentially kill both these birds with
one
stone: Replace the rbtree in zswap with an address_space.
Each swap type would have its own page_tree to organize the compressed
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On pon, 2013-09-23 at 17:07 -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 02:59:24PM +0800, Bob Liu wrote:
>> > Mel mentioned several problems about zswap/zbud in thread "[PATCH v6
>> > 0/5] zram/zsmalloc promotion".
Hi,
On pon, 2013-09-23 at 17:07 -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 02:59:24PM +0800, Bob Liu wrote:
> > Mel mentioned several problems about zswap/zbud in thread "[PATCH v6
> > 0/5] zram/zsmalloc promotion".
> >
> > Like "it's clunky as hell and the layering between zswap and
Hi,
On pon, 2013-09-23 at 17:07 -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 02:59:24PM +0800, Bob Liu wrote:
Mel mentioned several problems about zswap/zbud in thread [PATCH v6
0/5] zram/zsmalloc promotion.
Like it's clunky as hell and the layering between zswap and zbud is
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski
k.kozlow...@samsung.com wrote:
Hi,
On pon, 2013-09-23 at 17:07 -0500, Seth Jennings wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 02:59:24PM +0800, Bob Liu wrote:
Mel mentioned several problems about zswap/zbud in thread [PATCH v6
0/5] zram/zsmalloc
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 02:59:24PM +0800, Bob Liu wrote:
> Mel mentioned several problems about zswap/zbud in thread "[PATCH v6
> 0/5] zram/zsmalloc promotion".
>
> Like "it's clunky as hell and the layering between zswap and zbud is
> twisty" and "I think I brought up its stalling behaviour
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 02:59:24PM +0800, Bob Liu wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> On 09/11/2013 04:58 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Currently zbud pages are not movable and they cannot be allocated from CMA
> > (Contiguous Memory Allocator) region. These patches add migration of zbud
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 02:59:24PM +0800, Bob Liu wrote:
Hi Krzysztof,
On 09/11/2013 04:58 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
Hi,
Currently zbud pages are not movable and they cannot be allocated from CMA
(Contiguous Memory Allocator) region. These patches add migration of zbud
pages.
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 02:59:24PM +0800, Bob Liu wrote:
Mel mentioned several problems about zswap/zbud in thread [PATCH v6
0/5] zram/zsmalloc promotion.
Like it's clunky as hell and the layering between zswap and zbud is
twisty and I think I brought up its stalling behaviour during review
Hi Krzysztof,
On 09/11/2013 04:58 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently zbud pages are not movable and they cannot be allocated from CMA
> (Contiguous Memory Allocator) region. These patches add migration of zbud
> pages.
>
I agree that the migration of zbud pages is important so
Hi Krzysztof,
On 09/11/2013 04:58 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
Hi,
Currently zbud pages are not movable and they cannot be allocated from CMA
(Contiguous Memory Allocator) region. These patches add migration of zbud
pages.
I agree that the migration of zbud pages is important so that
26 matches
Mail list logo
