On 04/23/2010 04:47 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
Much easier to simulate an asynchronous API with a synchronous
backend.
Indeed. But an asynchronous API is not appropriate for frontswap
(or cleancache). The reason the hooks are so simple is because they
are assumed to be synchronous so that the page can be immediately
freed/reused.
Swapping is inherently asynchronous, so we'll have to wait for that to
complete anyway (as frontswap does not guarantee swap-in will succeed).
I don't doubt it makes things simpler, but also less flexible and
useful.
Something else that bothers me is the double swapping. Sure we're
making swapin faster, but we we're still loading the io subsystem with
writes. Much better to make swap-to-ram authoritative (and have the
hypervisor swap it to disk if it needs the memory).
Hmmm.... I now realize you are thinking of applying frontswap to
a hosted hypervisor (e.g. KVM). Using frontswap with a bare-metal
hypervisor (e.g. Xen) works fully synchronously, guarantees swap-in
will succeed, never double-swaps, and doesn't load the io subsystem
with writes. This all works very nicely today with a fully
synchronous "backend" (e.g. with tmem in Xen 4.0).
Perhaps I misunderstood. Isn't frontswap in front of the normal swap
device? So we do have double swapping, first to frontswap (which is in
memory, yes, but still a nonzero cost), then the normal swap device.
The io subsystem is loaded with writes; you only save the reads.
Better to swap to the hypervisor, and make it responsible for committing
to disk on overcommit or keeping in RAM when memory is available. This
way we avoid the write to disk if memory is in fact available (or at
least defer it until later). This way you avoid both reads and writes
if memory is available.
Well, copying memory so you can use a zero-copy dma engine is
counterproductive.
Yes, but for something like an SSD where copying can be used to
build up a full 64K write, the cost of copying memory may not be
counterproductive.
I don't understand. Please clarify.
If I understand correctly, SSDs work much more efficiently when
writing 64KB blocks. So much more efficiently in fact that waiting
to collect 16 4KB pages (by first copying them to fill a 64KB buffer)
will be faster than page-at-a-time DMA'ing them. If so, the
frontswap interface, backed by an asynchronous "buffering layer"
which collects 16 pages before writing to the SSD, may work
very nicely. Again this is still just speculation... I was
only pointing out that zero-copy DMA may not always be the best
solution.
The guest can easily (and should) issue 64k dmas using scatter/gather.
No need for copying.
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>