| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 15:02:31 +0200 From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> To: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com> Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, 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 Hi! > > Stop right here. Instead of improving existing swap api, you just > > create one because it is less work. > > > > We do not want apis to cummulate; please just fix the existing one. > > > If we added all the apis that worked when proposed, we'd have > > unmaintanable mess by about 1996. > > > > Why can't frontswap just use existing swap api? > > Hi Pavel! > > The existing swap API as it stands is inadequate for an efficient > synchronous interface (e.g. for swapping to RAM). Both Nitin > and I independently have found this to be true. But swap-to-RAM So... how much slower is swapping to RAM over current interface when compared to proposed interface, and how much is that slower than just using the memory directly? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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