[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BD3377E.6010303@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 21:25:02 +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 04/23/2010 07:26 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
>>
>> Looks like "init" == open, "put_page" == write, "get_page" == read,
>> "flush_page|flush_area" == trim. The only difference seems to be that
>> an overwriting put_page may fail. Doesn't seem to be much of a win,
>>
> No, ANY put_page can fail, and this is a critical part of the API
> that provides all of the flexibility for the hypervisor and all
> the guests. (See previous reply.)
>
The guest isn't required to do any put_page()s. It can issue lots of
them when memory is available, and keep them in the hypervisor forever.
Failing new put_page()s isn't enough for a dynamic system, you need to
be able to force the guest to give up some of its tmem.
--
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