[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C1727EC.2020500@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:12:44 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/T/D][PATCH 2/2] Linux/Guest cooperative unmapped page cache
control
On 06/14/2010 08:16 PM, Balbir Singh wrote:
> * Dave Hansen<dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> [2010-06-14 10:09:31]:
>
>
>> On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 22:28 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
>>
>>> If you've got duplicate pages and you know
>>> that they are duplicated and can be retrieved at a lower cost, why
>>> wouldn't we go after them first?
>>>
>> I agree with this in theory. But, the guest lacks the information about
>> what is truly duplicated and what the costs are for itself and/or the
>> host to recreate it. "Unmapped page cache" may be the best proxy that
>> we have at the moment for "easy to recreate", but I think it's still too
>> poor a match to make these patches useful.
>>
>>
> That is why the policy (in the next set) will come from the host. As
> to whether the data is truly duplicated, my experiments show up to 60%
> of the page cache is duplicated.
Isn't that incredibly workload dependent?
We can't expect the host admin to know whether duplication will occur or
not.
--
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