[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44FE6CD6.4040809@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 16:38:14 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Kimball Murray <kimball.murray@...il.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...eo.com, ak@...e.de
Subject: Re: [Feature] x86_64 page tracking for Stratus servers
Kimball Murray wrote:
>Attached is a git patch that implements a feature that is used by Stratus
>fault-tolerant servers running on Intel x86_64 platforms. It provides the
>kernel mechanism that allows a loadable module to be able to keep track of
>recently dirtied pages for the purpose of copying live, currently active
>memory, to a spare memory module.
>
>In Stratus servers, this spare memory module (and CPUs) will be brought into
>lockstep with the original memory (and CPUs) in order to achieve fault
>tolerance.
>
>In order to make this feature work, it is necessary to track pages which have
>been recently dirtied. A simplified view of the algorithm used in the kernel
>module is this:
>
>1. Turn on the tracking functionality.
>2. Copy all memory from active to spare memory module.
>3. Until done:
> a) Identify all pages that were dirtied in the active memory since
> the last copy operation.
> b) Copy all pages identified in 3a to the spare memory module.
> c) If number of pages still dirty is less than some threshhold,
> i. "black out" the system (enter SMI)
> ii. copy remaining pages in blackout context
> iii. goto step 4
> Else
> goto 3a.
>4. synchronize cpus
>5. leave SMI, return to OS
>6. System is now "Duplexed", and fault tolerant.
>
Silly question, why can't you do all this from stop_machine_run context (or
your SMI) that doesn't have to worry about other CPUs dirtying memory?
>Please consider this feature for inclusion in the kernel tree, as it is very
>important to Stratus.
>
Given that it doesn't touch core mm/ code, I don't really care about it[*]
except that it doesn't make sense to have the tracking hooks in generic code
because it is pretty specific to your module.
Also, as far as a "notifier" goes, it is of course completely broken unless
your module is the only one that is ever going to use it. Which I suspect
may be the case ;) But you do really need to at least WARN_ON or fail if
someone is going to break it like this.
[*] Though if it gets included, it would not stop me lamenting the
proliferation of complexities to support *tiny* obscure userbases. Can
we wait until your hardware is smart enough to snoop the cc? :)
--
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
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