| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] (Take 2): transcendent memory ("tmem
|
To: |
Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Subject: |
Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] (Take 2): transcendent memory ("tmem") for Linux |
|
From: |
Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Date: |
Sun, 12 Jul 2009 23:43:30 +0300 |
|
Cc: |
npiggin@xxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxx, jeremy@xxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tmem-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kurt.hackel@xxxxxxxxxx, Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dave.mccracken@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, sunil.mushran@xxxxxxxxxx, alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Anthony Liguori <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@xxxxxxxxxx>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx>, chris.mason@xxxxxxxxxx, Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Delivery-date: |
Sun, 12 Jul 2009 13:43:52 -0700 |
|
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
In-reply-to: |
<e60ab548-f0be-4a75-a10b-1f2eb89247a7@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: |
<e60ab548-f0be-4a75-a10b-1f2eb89247a7@default> |
|
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090513 Fedora/3.0-2.3.beta2.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b2 |
On 07/12/2009 11:39 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
Right, the transient uses of tmem when applied to disk objects
(swap/pagecache) are very similar to disk caches. Which is
why you can
get a very similar effect when caching your virtual disks;
this can be
done without any guest modification.
Write-through backing and virtual disk cacheing offer a
similar effect, but it is far from the same.
Can you explain how it differs for the swap case? Maybe I don't
understand how tmem preswap works.
--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home