[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1KGTmZ-0006oz-Qi@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 09:08:07 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: arjan@...radead.org
CC: miklos@...redi.hu, miklos@...redi.hu, hch@...radead.org,
tytso@....edu, pavel@...e.cz, t-sato@...jp.nec.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com, dm-devel@...hat.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
axboe@...nel.dk, mtk.manpages@...glemail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Add timeout feature
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> I tihnk the idea there is
>
> freeze . do the snapshot op . unfreeze . make backup of snapshot
Ah, so then my proposal would become
run_frozen mountpoint do-snapshot
do-backup
release-snapshot
and if they are afraid of deadlocks they can just implement the
timeout in userspace:
run_frozen -t timeout mountpoint do-snapshot
'run_frozen' can be a trivial 30 line app, that can be guaranteed not
to deadlock.
> one can argue about the need of doing the first 3 steps via a userland
> loop; it sure sounds like one needs to be really careful to not do any
> writes to the fs from the app that does snapshots (and that includes
> doing any syscalls in the kernel that allocate memory.. just because
> that already could cause unrelated data to be written from inside the
> app. Not fun.)
Userland always has to be careful when messing with raw devices. That
alone is not a reason to put the snapshotting facility in kernel IMO.
Miklos
--
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