From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.11] helo=sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1ArMCJ-0005GE-RD for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:08:27 -0800 Received: from smtp001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.12.11.32]) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with smtp (Exim 4.30) id 1ArMB2-0003cB-0c for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 11:07:08 -0800 From: BlaisorBlade Subject: Re: [uml-devel] Swapping directly to host swap area? References: <200402051759.03917.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it> <200402110043.i1B0hOip004189@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> In-Reply-To: <200402110043.i1B0hOip004189@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200402122008.22995.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it> Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:08:22 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Jeff Dike Alle 01:43, mercoled=EC 11 febbraio 2004, Jeff Dike ha scritto: > blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it said: > > About this, my idea was that using swap both on the host and on the > > guests is not very useful: > > My suggestions were aimed at making the host less likely to swap. There > are various pathological things which happen when both UML and the host a= re > swapping. Having said that, the host needs to be able to swap UMLs if the > memory situation is so bad that there is no other choice. I agree completely. > > - because the host already sees which pages are accessed and which not > > (an access inside UML is an access inside the host); the only > > difference is that the host can swap even the guest kernel, while UML > > not; > > UML might have a better idea than the host, though. It seems to me that the access statistics should be the same ones: I do not= =20 know thoroughly the way pages are marked as active or swappable (I can chec= k=20 in the 2.4 VM description - ask for the address) but if that depends on pag= e=20 faulting, then, it seems to me that since guest page fault are even host pa= ge=20 fault (the UML handling of SIGSEGV is like the host handling of CPU fault=20 exceptions, right?) the statistics should be the same. At least In My Very = Humble Opinion. Bye --=20 Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade Linux registered user n. 292729 ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id438&op=CCk _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel