Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752185AbZGLUlG (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:41:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751317AbZGLUky (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:40:54 -0400 Received: from acsinet11.oracle.com ([141.146.126.233]:56974 "EHLO acsinet11.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751270AbZGLUkx convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:40:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 13:39:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Dan Magenheimer To: Avi Kivity Cc: npiggin@suse.de, akpm@osdl.org, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, tmem-devel@oss.oracle.com, kurt.hackel@oracle.com, Rusty Russell , jeremy@goop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, sunil.mushran@oracle.com, chris.mason@oracle.com, Anthony Liguori , Schwidefsky , dave.mccracken@oracle.com, Marcelo Tosatti , alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Balbir Singh Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] (Take 2): transcendent memory ("tmem") for Linux In-Reply-To: <4A5A1A51.2080301@redhat.com> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 1.5.1.2 (306040) [OL 9.0.0.6627] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Source-IP: abhmt007.oracle.com [141.146.116.16] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090209.4A5A4A23.01EE:SCFSTAT5015188,ss=1,fgs=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1571 Lines: 38 > CMM2 and tmem are not any different in this regard; both require OS > modification, and both make information available to the > hypervisor. In > fact CMM2 is much more intrusive (but on the other hand provides much > more information). > > > For those that believe it will be pervasive in the > > future, finding the right balance is a critical step > > in operating system evolution. > > You're arguing for CMM2 here IMO. I'm arguing that both are a good thing and a step in the right direction. In some ways, tmem is a bigger step and in some ways CMM2 is a bigger step. > My take on this is that precache (predecache?) / preswap can be > implemented even without tmem by using write-through backing for the > virtual disk. For swap this is actually slight;y more efficient than > tmem preswap, for preuncache slightly less efficient (since > there will > be some double caching). So I'm more interested in other use > cases of tmem/CMM2. > > 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/