From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <444EC953.6060309@yahoo.com.au> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:13:55 +1000 From: Nick Piggin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Page host virtual assist patches. References: <20060424123412.GA15817@skybase> <20060424180138.52e54e5c.akpm@osdl.org> <444DCD87.2030307@yahoo.com.au> <1145953914.5282.21.camel@localhost> <444DF447.4020306@yahoo.com.au> <1145964531.5282.59.camel@localhost> <444E1253.9090302@yahoo.com.au> <1145974521.5282.89.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1145974521.5282.89.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: schwidefsky@de.ibm.com Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, frankeh@watson.ibm.com, rhim@cc.gatech.edu List-ID: Martin Schwidefsky wrote: >On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 22:13 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > >>Yes, that simple approach (presumably the guest ballooner allocates >>memory from the guest and frees it to the host or something similar). >>I'd be interested to see numbers from real workloads... >> >>I don't think the hva method is reasonable as it is. Let's see if we >>can improve host->guest driven reclaiming first. >> > >So you believe that the host->guest driven relaiming can be improved to >a point where hva is superfluous. I do not believe that. Lets agree to > I'm not sure that it would ever be quite as fast, but I hope it could be improved to the point that it is adequate. Yes. >disagree here. Any findings in the hva code itself? > OK, we'll agree to disagree for now :) I did start looking at the code but as you can see I only reviewed patch 1 before getting sidetracked. I'll try to find some more time to look at in the next few days. Nick -- Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com -- 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