[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1272643466.23895.2529.camel@nimitz>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:04:26 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.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
On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 10:13 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 04/30/2010 04:45 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >
> > A large portion of CMM2's gain came from the fact that you could take
> > memory away from guests without _them_ doing any work. If the system is
> > experiencing a load spike, you increase load even more by making the
> > guests swap. If you can just take some of their memory away, you can
> > smooth that spike out. CMM2 and frontswap do that. The guests
> > explicitly give up page contents that the hypervisor does not have to
> > first consult with the guest before discarding.
> >
>
> Frontswap does not do this. Once a page has been frontswapped, the host
> is committed to retaining it until the guest releases it. It's really
> not very different from a synchronous swap device.
>
> I think cleancache allows the hypervisor to drop pages without the
> guest's immediate knowledge, but I'm not sure.
Gah. You're right. I'm reading the two threads and confusing the
concepts. I'm a bit less mystified why the discussion is revolving
around the swap device so much. :)
-- Dave
--
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