Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 9 Aug 2022 20:53:36 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
To:     Dmitry Rokosov <DDRokosov@sberdevices.ru>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "ngupta@vflare.org" <ngupta@vflare.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>,
        Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
        Aleksey Romanov <AVRomanov@sberdevices.ru>
Subject: Re: ext2/zram issue [was: Linux 5.19]
Message-ID: <YvJKwCXewHmuWGdh@google.com>
References: <CAHk-=wgrz5BBk=rCz7W28Fj_o02s0Xi0OEQ3H1uQgOdFvHgx0w@mail.gmail.com>
 <702b3187-14bf-b733-263b-20272f53105d@kernel.org>
 <c7c69f77-4ea2-3375-33f3-322a3d35def5@kernel.org>
 <8710b302-9415-458d-f8a2-b78cc3a96e49@kernel.org>
 <YvIeLHuEb9XDSp6N@google.com>
 <YvIk3SdC7wP3uItR@google.com>
 <YvImxBsHJcpNzC+i@google.com>
 <20220809102011.pfhfb4k7tdkqvdai@CAB-WSD-L081021.sigma.sbrf.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220809102011.pfhfb4k7tdkqvdai@CAB-WSD-L081021.sigma.sbrf.ru>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On (22/08/09 10:20), Dmitry Rokosov wrote:
> I think oom-kill is an inevitable escape from low memory situation if we
> don't solve original problem with high memory consumption in the user
> setup. Reclaim-based zram slow path just delays oom if memory eating
> root cause is not resolved.
> 
> I totally agree with you that all patches which have visible user
> degradations should be reverted, but maybe this is more user setup
> problem, what do you think?

I'd go with the revert.
Jiri, are you going to send the revert patch or shall I handle it?

> If you make the decision to revert slow path removal patch, I would
> prefer to review the original patch with unneeded code removal again
> if you don't mind:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20220422115959.3313-1-avromanov@sberdevices.ru/

Sure, we can return to it after the merge window.