[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    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'.

    (cesky, pictures)

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-05-02 09:13    [W:0.020 / U:4.704 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site