[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BD07594.9080905@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:13:08 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, jeremy@...p.org,
hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk, ngupta@...are.org, 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 04/22/2010 06:48 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
>>> a synchronous concurrency-safe page-oriented pseudo-RAM device (such
>>> :
>>> conform to certain policies as follows:
>>>
>> How baked in is the synchronous requirement? Memory, for example, can
>> be asynchronous if it is copied by a dma engine, and since there are
>> hardware encryption engines, there may be hardware compression engines
>> in the future.
>>
> Thanks for the comment!
>
> Synchronous is required, but likely could be simulated by ensuring all
> coherency (and concurrency) requirements are met by some intermediate
> "buffering driver" -- at the cost of an extra page copy into a buffer
> and overhead of tracking the handles (poolid/inode/index) of pages in
> the buffer that are "in flight". This is an approach we are considering
> to implement an SSD backend, but hasn't been tested yet so, ahem, the
> proof will be in the put'ing. ;-)
>
Well, copying memory so you can use a zero-copy dma engine is
counterproductive.
Much easier to simulate an asynchronous API with a synchronous backend.
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists