[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100429130231.GA1661@ucw.cz>
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