| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] Re: Tmem [PATCH 0/5] (Take 3): Transcendent memory
|
To: |
Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Subject: |
[Xen-devel] Re: Tmem [PATCH 0/5] (Take 3): Transcendent memory |
|
From: |
Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> |
|
Date: |
Fri, 25 Dec 2009 20:18:49 +0100 |
|
Cc: |
Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx>, sunil.mushran@xxxxxxxxxx, jeremy@xxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tmem-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-mm <linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, dave.mccracken@xxxxxxxxxx, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx>, chris.mason@xxxxxxxxxx, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx>, Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Nitin Gupta <ngupta@xxxxxxxxxx>, Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Delivery-date: |
Fri, 25 Dec 2009 11:19:18 -0800 |
|
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
In-reply-to: |
<ff435130-98a2-417c-8109-9dd029022a91@default> |
|
List-help: |
<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
|
List-id: |
Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-post: |
<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-subscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
|
List-unsubscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
|
References: |
<d760cf2d0912222228y3284e455r16cdb2bfd2ecaa0e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <ff435130-98a2-417c-8109-9dd029022a91@default> |
|
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
On Wed 2009-12-23 09:15:27, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> > As I mentioned, I really like the idea behind tmem. All I am proposing
> > is that we should probably explore some alternatives to achive this using
> > some existing infrastructure in kernel.
>
> Hi Nitin --
>
> Sorry if I sounded overly negative... too busy around the holidays.
>
> I'm definitely OK with exploring alternatives. I just think that
> existing kernel mechanisms are very firmly rooted in the notion
> that either the kernel owns the memory/cache or an asynchronous
> device owns it. Tmem falls somewhere in between and is very
Well... compcache seems to be very similar to preswap: in preswap case
you don't know if hypervisor will have space, in ramzswap you don't
know if data are compressible.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home