Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230908235115.2943486-1-nphamcs@gmail.com> <ZRKIRyYYkAbJ5uOP@infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <ZRKIRyYYkAbJ5uOP@infradead.org>
From:   Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Sep 2023 13:06:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKEwX=O3ydrSKoZKv-6T0QHTEh5WkgRfK3b7Aa_H6GmQbn4QsA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zswap: change zswap's default allocator to zsmalloc
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
        cerasuolodomenico@gmail.com, yosryahmed@google.com,
        sjenning@redhat.com, ddstreet@ieee.org, vitaly.wool@konsulko.com,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:29=E2=80=AFAM Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.o=
rg> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 04:51:15PM -0700, Nhat Pham wrote:
> > Out of zswap's 3 allocators, zsmalloc is the clear superior in terms of
> > memory utilization, both in theory and as observed in practice, with it=
s
> > high storage density and low internal fragmentation. zsmalloc is also
> > more actively developed and maintained, since it is the allocator of
> > choice for zswap for many users, as well as the only allocator for zram=
.
>
> Dumb question from an outside, why do we then even keep the other
> two allocators around?
>

Maybe legacy users who explicitly configure zbud/z3fold?
We have a couple internally, and have to manually undo
those configuration after we stop compiling these 2
allocators.

But yeah, I don't see why we should keep these 2 allocators
around. Time to deprecate them? :)