From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 01:37:12 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Page host virtual assist patches. Message-Id: <20060425013712.365892c2.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <1145953914.5282.21.camel@localhost> References: <20060424123412.GA15817@skybase> <20060424180138.52e54e5c.akpm@osdl.org> <444DCD87.2030307@yahoo.com.au> <1145953914.5282.21.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: schwidefsky@de.ibm.com Cc: nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, linux-mm@kvack.org, frankeh@watson.ibm.com, rhim@cc.gatech.edu List-ID: Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > > > Definitely. The current patches seem like just an extra layer to do > > everything we can already -- reclaim unused pages and populate them > > again when they get touched. > > > > And complex they are. Having the core VM have to know about all this > > weird stuff seems... not good. > > The point here is WHO does the reclaim. Sure we can do the reclaim in > the guest but it is the host that has the memory pressure. To call into > the guest is not a good idea, if you have an idle guest you generally > increase the memory pressure because some of the guests pages might have > been swapped which are needed if the guest has to do the reclaim. Cannot the guests employ text sharing? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org