[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 20:08:42 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
axboe@...nel.dk, hch@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Paul.Clements@...eleye.com, tytso@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow userspace block device implementation
Hi!
> Well, it may be a good, bad, idiotic or brilliant idea depending on your
> personal philosophy. I went down this route out of pragmatism.
> Hopefully I have not fully re-invented the wheel.
I did, long ago. I called it nbd... aha and you know about it (from
following mails in thread).
> accidental deadlock. There may of course be some hidden deep deadlock
> potential in such a device, especially if one decided to use it as a
> swap device, but again, this is a philosophical issue.
What's philosophical about 'it does not work for swap or dirty mmap'?
(last time I checked, dirty mmap data behaved very much like swap).
(And yes, nbd has same problem. It should be safe for r/o access to
localhost, but may deadlock when it is mounted locally...)
And yes, I believe that's show stopper. OTOH if you _can_ solve
that... then you have some rather significant advantage over nbd.
(But guaranteeing progress for dirty writeout will be tricky even with
mlocked userland, AFAICT...)
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists