From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:06:08 -0200 (BRST) From: Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: [RFC] Structure in Compressed Cache In-Reply-To: <20001030190922.A5183@linux.ime.usp.br> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: linux-mm@kvack.org, kernel@tutu.ime.usp.br List-ID: On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Rodrigo S. de Castro wrote: > Hello, > > In my implementation of compressed cache (kernel 2.2.16), I > started the project having my cache as a slab cache, structure > provided by kernel. I have all step 1 (a cache with no compression) > done, but I had a problem with marking pages in my cache. After an > email sent to the list about this subject, I started looking at shared > memory mechanism (mainly ipc/shm.c), and I saw that there's another > way of making it: with a page table allocation and memory mapping. I > could go on with my initial idea (with slab cache) but I think that > doing the latter way (with page table and memory mapping) would be > more complete (and, of course, harder). I will have a pool of > (compressed) pages that gotta be always in memory and will be > "between" physical memory and swap. As the project is growing I would > like to define now which path to follow, taking in account > completeness and upgradeability (to future versions of kernel). Which > way do you think that is better? Please, I also ask you to tell me in > case you know if there's another way, maybe better, of doing it. Slab cache memory is physically contiguous and non swappable, so it may be a waste to use it to cache userspace data. -- 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.eu.org/Linux-MM/