From: Nitin Gupta <ngupta@vflare.org>
To: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
Cc: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
KVM development list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] GSoC 2010: Memory Compression for Virtualized Environments
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 15:17:02 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BADD416.5080807@vflare.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9583F974-0EA0-40E2-9285-C04ECA395FC1@suse.de>
On 03/27/2010 02:31 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 27.03.2010, at 08:38, Nitin Gupta wrote:
>
<snip>
>> So, this GSoC project aims to provide a new approach for achieving memory
>> compression that solves all above issues: cleanly hook into reclaim path
>> directly, providing both swap and pagecache compression, avoiding all block I/O
>> overhead.
>>
>> Project motivation, design and implementation details are present in this
>> document:
>> www.scribd.com/doc/28713197/Memory-Compression-for-Virtualized-Environments
>
> Very interesting project.
>
> I'm not 100% sure it's a good idea to waste CPU time on page cache compression, but then again I guess with 64-core systems coming up CPU power is a lot cheaper than I/O. You should definitely keep NUMA in mind while doing this though. The target systems for this certainly aren't single node systems ;-).
>
The target is certainly large scale systems. For 64-bit etc. crazy machines it might
be worth to even dedicate 1 or 2 cores for de/compression (though not necessary).
Even for desktops, 4 cores are now so common.
Then comes embedded, where other issues also come into picture -- slow random writes
on flash cards, wear-leveling issues, power to de/compress vs writing to flash etc.
I highlighted virtualization since large scale systems (and virtualization workload) are
easily justifiable for this feature :)
> Another thing that I realized while reading through this is that I'm missing the virtualization link. You do explain it in the introduction, but I certainly fail to see why this should be limited to virtualization. It'd improve swapping penalty in general.
>
It is not limited to virtualization case and it does improve I/O penalty in non-virtualized case too
(as shown by compcache work). I highlighted virtualization only because its looks like an important
use case and benefits of memory compression are yet to be explored in this area.
On a side note: another project proposal I'm going to submit is:
"Virtual Co-processor: Flexible and Scalable Virtual Machines"
you can see draft of the paper here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23978468/Virtual-Co-processors-Flexible-and-Scalable-Virtual-Machines
> Either way, I'm eager to see this get accepted :-).
>
And I'm eager to start work on this :)
Thanks for your comments.
Nitin
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-27 9:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-27 7:38 [RFC] GSoC 2010: Memory Compression for Virtualized Environments Nitin Gupta
2010-03-27 9:01 ` Alexander Graf
2010-03-27 9:47 ` Nitin Gupta [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4BADD416.5080807@vflare.org \
--to=ngupta@vflare.org \
--cc=agraf@suse.de \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox