[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BD4329A.9010509@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 15:16:26 +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 04/25/2010 06:11 AM, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> On 04/24/2010 11:57 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
> No: trim or discard is not useful. The problem is that we require a callback
> _as soon as_ a page (swap slot) is freed. Otherwise, stale data quickly accumulates
> in memory defeating the whole purpose of in-memory compressed swap devices (like ramzswap).
>
Doesn't flash have similar requirements? The earlier you discard, the
likelier you are to reuse an erase block (or reduce the amount of copying).
> Increasing the frequency of discards is also not an option:
> - Creating discard bio requests themselves need memory and these swap devices
> come into picture only under low memory conditions.
>
That's fine, swap works under low memory conditions by using reserves.
> - We need to regularly scan swap_map to issue these discards. Increasing discard
> frequency also means more frequent scanning (which will still not be fast enough
> for ramzswap needs).
>
How does frontswap do this? Does it maintain its own data structures?
>> 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.
>>
>>
> Spending lot of effort optimizing an overhead which can be completely avoided
> is probably not worth it.
>
I'm not sure. Swap-to-flash will soon be everywhere. If it's slow,
people will feel it a lot more than ramzswap slowness.
> Also, I think the choice of a synchronous style API for frontswap and cleancache
> is justified as they want to send pages to host *RAM*. If you want to use other
> devices like SSDs, then these should be just added as another swap device as
> we do currently -- these should not be used as frontswap storage directly.
>
Even for copying to RAM an async API is wanted, so you can dma it
instead of copying.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists