[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704271303260.925@sbz-30.cs.Helsinki.FI>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:12:08 +0300 (EEST)
From: Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
cc: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...el.suspend2.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Back to the future.
Am Freitag, 27. April 2007 08:18 schrieb Pekka J Enberg:
> > No. The snapshot is just that. A snapshot in time. From kernel point of
> > view, it doesn't matter one bit what when you did it or if the state has
> > changed before you resume. It's up to userspace to make sure the user
> > doesn't do real work while the snapshot is being written to disk and
> > machine is shut down.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> And where is the benefit in that? How is such user space freezing logic
> simpler than having the kernel do the write?
>
> What can you do in user space if all filesystems are r/o that is worth the
> hassle?
I am talking about snapshot_system() here. It's not given that the
filesystems need to be read-only (you can snapshot them too). The benefit
here is that you can do whatever you want with the snapshot (encrypt,
compress, send over the network) and have a clean well-defined interface
in the kernel. In addition, aborting the snapshot is simpler, simply
munmap() the snapshot.
The problem with writing in the kernel is obvious: we need to add new code
to the kernel for compression, encryption, and userspace interaction
(graphical progress bar) that are important for user experience.
Pekka
-
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