lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Frontswap [PATCH 0/4] (was Transcendent Memory): overview

> So there are two users of frontswap for which the synchronous
> interface makes sense. I believe there may be more in the
> future and you disagree but, as Jeremy said, "a general Linux
> principle is not to overdesign interfaces for hypothetical users,
> only for real needs." We have demonstrated there is a need
> with at least two users so the debate is only whether the
> number of users is two or more than two.
>
> Frontswap is a very non-invasive patch and is very cleanly
> layered so that if it is not in the presence of either of
> the intended "users", it can be turned off in many different
> ways with zero overhead (CONFIG'ed off) or extremely small overhead
> (frontswap_ops is never set; or frontswap_ops is set but the
> underlying hypervisor doesn't support it so frontswap_poolid
> never gets set).

Yet there are less invasive solutions available, like 'add trim
operation to swap_ops'.

So what needs to be said here is 'frontswap is XX times faster than
swap_ops based solution on workload YY'.
Pavel

--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-02 09:13    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site