Message-id: <1375794314.13955.6.camel@AMDC1943>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] mm: reclaim zbud pages on migration and compaction
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
To: Bob Liu <bob.liu@oracle.com>
Cc: Seth Jennings <sjenning@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 15:05:14 +0200
In-reply-to: <5200BEEF.7060904@oracle.com>
References: <1375771361-8388-1-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
 <5200BEEF.7060904@oracle.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
MIME-version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 910
Lines: 23

On wto, 2013-08-06 at 17:16 +0800, Bob Liu wrote:
> On 08/06/2013 02:42 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > This reclaim process is different than zbud_reclaim_page(). It acts more
> > like swapoff() by trying to unuse pages stored in zbud page and bring
> > them back to memory. The standard zbud_reclaim_page() on the other hand
> > tries to write them back.
> 
> I prefer to migrate zbud pages directly if it's possible than reclaiming
> them during compaction.

I think it is possible however it would be definitely more complex. In
case of migration the zswap handles should be updated as they are just
virtual addresses. Am I right?

Best regards,
Krzysztof


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/