[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BD4413D.5030808@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:18:53 +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 04/25/2010 04:12 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
>>
>> In this case you could use the same mechanism to stop new put_page()s?
>>
> You are suggesting the hypervisor communicate dynamically-rapidly-changing
> physical memory availability information to a userland daemon in each guest,
> and each daemon communicate this information to each respective kernel
> to notify the kernel that hypervisor memory is not available?
>
> Seems very convoluted to me, and anyway it doesn't eliminate the need
> for a hook placed exactly where the frontswap_put hook is placed.
>
Yeah, it's pretty ugly. Balloons typically communicate without a daemon
too.
>> Seems frontswap is like a reverse balloon, where the balloon is in
>> hypervisor space instead of the guest space.
>>
> That's a reasonable analogy. Frontswap serves nicely as an
> emergency safety valve when a guest has given up (too) much of
> its memory via ballooning but unexpectedly has an urgent need
> that can't be serviced quickly enough by the balloon driver.
>
(or ordinary swap)
--
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