[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1229472783.17206.358.camel@nimitz>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:13:03 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>
Cc: jeremy@...p.org, arnd@...db.de,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Linux Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC v11][PATCH 03/13] General infrastructure for checkpoint
restart
On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 14:43 -0800, Mike Waychison wrote:
> Hmm, if I'm understanding you correctly, adding ref counts explicitly
> (like you suggest below) would be used to let a lower layer defer
> writes. Seems like this could be just as easily done with explicits
> kmallocs and transferring ownership of the allocated memory to the
> in-kernel representation handling layer below (which in turn queues the
> data structures for writes).
Yup, that's true. We'd effectively shift the burden of freeing those
buffers into the cr_write() (or whatever we call it) function.
But, I'm just thinking about the sys_checkpoint() side. I need to go
look at the restart code too.
-- Dave
--
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