[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BD33822.2000604@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 21:27:46 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: ngupta@...are.org
CC: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>,
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 04/24/2010 04:49 AM, Nitin Gupta wrote:
>
>> I see. So why not implement this as an ordinary swap device, with a
>> higher priority than the disk device? this way we reuse an API and keep
>> things asynchronous, instead of introducing a special purpose API.
>>
>>
> ramzswap is exactly this: an ordinary swap device which stores every page
> in (compressed) memory and its enabled as highest priority swap. Currently,
> it stores these compressed chunks in guest memory itself but it is not very
> difficult to send these chunks out to host/hypervisor using virtio.
>
> However, it suffers from unnecessary block I/O layer overhead and requires
> weird hooks in swap code, say to get notification when a swap slot is freed.
>
Isn't that TRIM?
> OTOH frontswap approach gets rid of any such artifacts and overheads.
> (ramzswap: http://code.google.com/p/compcache/)
>
Maybe we should optimize these overheads instead. Swap used to always
be to slow devices, but swap-to-flash has the potential to make swap act
like an extension of RAM.
--
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