Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752772AbdG1VVZ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:21:25 -0400
Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:52950 "EHLO
        mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752494AbdG1VVY (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:21:24 -0400
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:21:23 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "karam . lee" <karam.lee@lge.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
        Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@redhat.com>, Nitin Gupta <ngupta@vflare.org>,
        seungho1.park@lge.com, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
        linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] remove rw_page() from brd, pmem and btt
Message-Id: <20170728142123.729b20e9fcf45c6a814f18e7@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170728173143.GE15980@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20170728165604.10455-1-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>
        <20170728173143.GE15980@bombadil.infradead.org>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.4.1 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 933
Lines: 16

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 10:31:43 -0700 Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:56:01AM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > Dan Williams and Christoph Hellwig have recently expressed doubt about
> > whether the rw_page() interface made sense for synchronous memory drivers
> > [1][2].  It's unclear whether this interface has any performance benefit
> > for these drivers, but as we continue to fix bugs it is clear that it does
> > have a maintenance burden.  This series removes the rw_page()
> > implementations in brd, pmem and btt to relieve this burden.
> 
> Why don't you measure whether it has performance benefits?  I don't
> understand why zram would see performance benefits and not other drivers.
> If it's going to be removed, then the whole interface should be removed,
> not just have the implementations removed from some drivers.

Yes please.  Minchan, could you please take a look sometime?