[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100503193223.GA27796@elf.ucw.cz>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 21:32:23 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.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
> > If block layer overhead is a problem, go ahead and optimize it instead
> > of adding new interfaces to bypass it. Though I expect it wouldn't be
> > needed, and if any optimization needs to be done it is in the swap
> > layer.
> > Optimizing swap has the additional benefit of improving performance on
> > flash-backed swap.
> > :
> > What happens when no tmem is available? you swap to a volume. That's
> > the disk size needed.
> > :
> > You're dynamic swap is limited too. And no, no guest modifications.
>
> You keep saying you are going to implement all of the dynamic features
> of frontswap with no changes to the guest and no copying and no
> host-swapping. You are being disingenuous. VMware has had a lot
I don't see why no copying is a requirement. I believe requirement
should be "it is fast enough".
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