Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:18:53 +0300 | From | Avi Kivity <> | Subject | Re: Frontswap [PATCH 0/4] (was Transcendent Memory): overview |
| |
On 04/25/2010 04:12 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote: >> >> In this case you could use the same mechanism to stop new put_page()s? >> > 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. >
Yeah, it's pretty ugly. Balloons typically communicate without a daemon too.
>> Seems frontswap is like a reverse balloon, where the balloon is in >> hypervisor space instead of the guest space. >> > 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. >
(or ordinary swap)
-- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
| |