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

[Dan Magenheimer]

> > 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'.

As Nitin pointed out much earlier in this thread:

"No: trim or discard is not useful"

I also think that trim does not do anything for the widely
varying dynamically changing size that frontswap provides.
 
> So what needs to be said here is 'frontswap is XX times faster than
> swap_ops based solution on workload YY'.

Are you asking me to demonstrate that swap-to-hypervisor-RAM is
faster than swap-to-disk?

--
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/