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
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 unusua
> 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 i
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
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 b
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 mainli
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 main
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 SA
> 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 savin
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 ma
> 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 benc
> 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 m
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:
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 code
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 co
> 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 l
> > 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.
; > > 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 conce
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 t
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-e
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 neede
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/
> 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.
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 an
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 half
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
> 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 contributio
36 matches
Mail list logo
