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

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Dan Magenheimer
Date: Sunday, April 25, 2010 - 6:12 am

> On 04/25/2010 03:41 AM, Dan Magenheimer wrote:

You are suggesting the hypervisor communicate dynamically-rapidly-changing
physical memory availability information to a userland daemon in each guest,
and each daemon communicate this information to each respective kernel
to notify the kernel that hypervisor memory is not available?

Seems very convoluted to me, and anyway it doesn't eliminate the need
for a hook placed exactly where the frontswap_put hook is placed.


That's a reasonable analogy.  Frontswap serves nicely as an
emergency safety valve when a guest has given up (too) much of
its memory via ballooning but unexpectedly has an urgent need
that can't be serviced quickly enough by the balloon driver.
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Frontswap [PATCH 0/4] (was Transcendent Memory): overview, Dan Magenheimer, (Thu Apr 22, 6:42 am)
RE: Frontswap [PATCH 0/4] (was Transcendent Memory): overview, Dan Magenheimer, (Sun Apr 25, 6:12 am)
Re: Frontswap [PATCH 0/4] (was Transcendent Memory): overview, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Mon Apr 26, 5:49 pm)
Re: Frontswap [PATCH 0/4] (was Transcendent Memory): overview, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Fri Apr 30, 10:52 am)
Re: Frontswap [PATCH 0/4] (was Transcendent Memory): overview, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Fri Apr 30, 11:59 am)
Re: Frontswap [PATCH 0/4] (was Transcendent Memory): overview, Martin Schwidefsky, (Mon May 10, 9:05 am)