linux-kernel - Re: Frontswap [PATCH 0/4] (was Transcendent Memory): overview

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:21:09 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>
CC:	ngupta@...are.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, jeremy@...p.org, hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk,
	JBeulich@...ell.com, chris.mason@...cle.com,
	kurt.hackel@...cle.com, dave.mccracken@...cle.com, npiggin@...e.de,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, riel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: Frontswap [PATCH 0/4] (was Transcendent Memory): overview

On 04/27/2010 11:29 AM, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
>
> OK, so on the one hand, you think that the proposed synchronous
> interface for frontswap is insufficiently extensible for other
> uses (presumably including KVM).  On the other hand, you agree
> that using the existing I/O subsystem is unnecessarily heavyweight.
> On the third hand, Nitin has answered your questions and spent
> a good part of three years finding that extending the existing swap
> interface to efficiently support swap-to-pseudo-RAM requires
> some kind of in-kernel notification mechanism to which Linus
> has already objected.
>
> So you are instead proposing some new guest-to-host asynchronous
> notification mechanism that doesn't use the existing bio
> mechanism (and so presumably not irqs),

(any notification mechanism has to use irqs if it exits the guest)

> imitates or can
> utilize a dma engine, and uses less cpu cycles than copying
> pages.  AND, for long-term maintainability, you'd like to avoid
> creating a new guest-host API that does all this, even one that
> is as simple and lightweight as the proposed frontswap hooks.
>
> Does that summarize your objection well?
>    

No.  Adding a new async API that parallels the block layer would be 
madness.  My first preference would be to completely avoid new APIs.  I 
think that would work for swap-to-hypervisor but probably not for 
compcache.  Second preference is the synchronous API, third is a new 
async API.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/