Re: Frontswap [PATCH 0/4] (was Transcendent Memory): overview

[Avi Kivity]

On 04/25/2010 06:11 AM, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> On 04/24/2010 11:57 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>    
> > On 04/24/2010 04:49 AM, Nitin Gupta wrote:
> >      
> > >        
> > > > I see.  So why not implement this as an ordinary swap device, with a
> > > > higher priority than the disk device?  this way we reuse an API and keep
> > > > things asynchronous, instead of introducing a special purpose API.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >          
> > > ramzswap is exactly this: an ordinary swap device which stores every page
> > > in (compressed) memory and its enabled as highest priority swap.
> > > Currently,
> > > it stores these compressed chunks in guest memory itself but it is not
> > > very
> > > difficult to send these chunks out to host/hypervisor using virtio.
> > >
> > > However, it suffers from unnecessary block I/O layer overhead and
> > > requires
> > > weird hooks in swap code, say to get notification when a swap slot is
> > > freed.
> > >
> > >        
> > Isn't that TRIM?
> >      
> No: trim or discard is not useful. The problem is that we require a callback
> _as soon as_ a page (swap slot) is freed. Otherwise, stale data quickly accumulates
> in memory defeating the whole purpose of in-memory compressed swap devices (like ramzswap).
>    

Doesn't flash have similar requirements?  The earlier you discard, the 
likelier you are to reuse an erase block (or reduce the amount of copying).

> Increasing the frequency of discards is also not an option:
>   - Creating discard bio requests themselves need memory and these swap devices
> come into picture only under low memory conditions.
>    

That's fine, swap works under low memory conditions by using reserves.

>   - We need to regularly scan swap_map to issue these discards. Increasing discard
> frequency also means more frequent scanning (which will still not be fast enough
> for ramzswap needs).
>    

How does frontswap do this?  Does it maintain its own data structures?

> > Maybe we should optimize these overheads instead.  Swap used to always
> > be to slow devices, but swap-to-flash has the potential to make swap act
> > like an extension of RAM.
> >
> >      
> Spending lot of effort optimizing an overhead which can be completely avoided
> is probably not worth it.
>    

I'm not sure.  Swap-to-flash will soon be everywhere.   If it's slow, 
people will feel it a lot more than ramzswap slowness.

> Also, I think the choice of a synchronous style API for frontswap and cleancache
> is justified as they want to send pages to host *RAM*. If you want to use other
> devices like SSDs, then these should be just added as another swap device as
> we do currently -- these should not be used as frontswap storage directly.
>    

Even for copying to RAM an async API is wanted, so you can dma it 
instead of copying.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/