On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Minchan Kim [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 1:39 AM, Dan Magenheimer
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

From: Minchan Kim [mailto:minchan.kim@gmail.com]

quoted

As I read your comment, I can't find the benefit of zram compared to
frontswap.

Well, I am biased, but I agree that frontswap is a better technical
solution than zram. ;-)  But "dynamic-ity" is very important to
me and may be less important to others.

I thought of these other differences, both technical and
non-technical:

- Zram is minimally invasive to the swap subsystem, requiring only
 one hook which is already upstream (though see below) and is
 apparently already used by some Linux users.  Frontswap is somewhat

Yes. I think what someone is using it is a problem.

quoted

 more invasive and, UNTIL zcache-was-kztmem was posted a few weeks
 ago, had no non-Xen users (though some distros are already shipping
 the hooks in their kernels because Xen supports it); as a result,
 frontswap has gotten almost no review by kernel swap subsystem
 experts who I'm guessing weren't interested in anything that
 required Xen to use... hopefully that barrier is now resolved
 (but bottom line is frontswap is not yet upstream).

That's why I suggested to remove frontswap in this turn.
If any swap experts has a interest, maybe you can't receive any ack or

Typo.
If any swap experts don't have a interest,


-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>