Hi Ted -- Thanks for taking the time to reply. > The real problem is I don't think anyone is really paying attention to > cleancache. It's a bit more complicated than that. There ARE a lot of people interested in it, but there is a bit of a deadlock. I've heard from many people that would love to use Xen transcendent memory as a great solution for memory overcommitment in the cloud, but they get skittish when I tell them it requires kernel changes that haven't been accepted upstream. But key Linux maintainers don't consider the Xen base interesting enough to allow merging of cleancache (and frontswap), despite its simplicity and negligible impact, without at least a second (and preferably in-kernel) user. > Dan, something that might be useful to drive interest would be a > demonstration of this improves performance on, say, a netbook using > cleancache and zram, and how it is better than just using zram > directly as a swap device. With maybe some numbers? That might get > some interest from the community desktop distributions... Indeed. I was hoping that Nitin's work on zcache (the page cache version of zram) would serve that purpose but GregKH declined to merge it because it was dependent on unmerged cleancache... thus a chicken-and-egg problem; and Nitin has apparently now moved on to other (non-Linux-kernel) things. As a result, I've spent most of my free time over the last three months working on kztmem, which will hopefully serve the purpose. (I had hoped to post V1 of kztmem by today but ran into a problem in an overnight test run. So stay tuned.) Dan P.S. The numbers look pretty good. P.P.S. kztmem should also be easily adaptable to KVM, but I haven't the KVM expertise to make it happen -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
