Date:   Fri, 3 Mar 2023 10:43:59 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
To:     Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 3/6] zsmalloc: fine-grained inuse ratio based fullness
 grouping
Message-ID: <20230303014359.GB4022757@google.com>
References: <20230223030451.543162-4-senozhatsky@chromium.org>
 <Y/f2WvhNlwhsf2Cz@google.com>
 <Y/riPlQ2UK00WirI@google.com>
 <Y/6GAYJ4c9W0bPzp@google.com>
 <Y/8TENp78WSQ0UW3@google.com>
 <Y//tqFQgsCeMimg5@google.com>
 <Y//zbxEmAmoA69ed@google.com>
 <ZAE9W5xQmQecUzhj@google.com>
 <20230303010643.GA4022757@google.com>
 <ZAFPf9pv1CTmIgtL@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZAFPf9pv1CTmIgtL@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On (23/03/02 17:38), Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Otherwise I can create two big enums for fullness and stats.
> 
> Let's go with two enums at this moment since your great work is not
> tied into the problem. If that becomes really maintaince hole,
> we could tidy it up at that time.

OK.

> 
> > What's your preference on inuse_0 and inuse_100 naming? Do we
> > keep unified naming or should it be INUSE_MIN/INUSE_MAX or
> > EMPTY/FULL?
> 
> I don't have strong opinion about it. I will follow your choice. ;-)

OK :)

> prologue - seq_printf
> for (ratio = min, ratio < max; ratio++ )
>     seq_printf(s, "%lu", get_stat(ratio)
> epilogue - seq_printf
> seq_puts(s, "\n");

Let me try a loop.