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    [W:0.019 / U:91.228 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site