From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f175.google.com (mail-io0-f175.google.com [209.85.223.175]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C95B6B0038 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 06:32:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ioii196 with SMTP id i196so84457589ioi.3 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:32:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x236.google.com (mail-pa0-x236.google.com. [2607:f8b0:400e:c03::236]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id nv7si10997428igb.3.2015.10.15.03.32.36 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:32:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pabur7 with SMTP id ur7so1856341pab.2 for ; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 03:32:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 19:35:27 +0900 From: Minchan Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH] zsmalloc: don't test shrinker_enabled in zs_shrinker_count() Message-ID: <20151015103454.GA3527@bbox> References: <1444787879-5428-1-git-send-email-sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> <20151015022928.GB2840@bbox> <20151015035317.GF1735@swordfish> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151015035317.GF1735@swordfish> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Sergey Senozhatsky Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Sergey Senozhatsky On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:53:17PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (10/15/15 11:29), Minchan Kim wrote: > [..] > > I'm in favor of removing shrinker disable feature with this patch( > > although we didn't implement it yet) because if there is some problem > > of compaction, we should reveal and fix it without hiding with the > > feature. > > > > sure. > > > One thing I want is if we decide it, let's remove all things > > about shrinker_enabled(ie, variable). > > If we might need it later, we could introduce it easily. > > well, do we really want to make the shrinker a vital part of zsmalloc? > > it's not that we will tighten the dependency between zsmalloc and > shrinker, we will introduce it instead. in a sense that, at the moment, > zsmalloc is, let's say, ignorant to shrinker registration errors > (shrinker registration implementation is internal to shrinker), because > there is no direct impact on zsmalloc functionality -- zsmalloc will not > be able to release some pages (there are if-s here: first, zsmalloc > shrinker callback may even not be called; second, zsmalloc may not be > albe to migrate objects and release objects). > > no really strong opinion against, but at the same time zsmalloc will > have another point of failure (again, zsmalloc should not be aware of > shrinker registration implementation and why it may fail). > > so... I can prepare a new patch later today. I misunderstood your description. I thought you wanted to remove codes for disabling auto-compaction by user because I really don't want it like same reason of VM's compaction. My bad. You woke up my brain, I remember the reason. Thanks. Acked-by: Minchan Kim -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org