[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A80A37C.9000808@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:47:24 -1000
From: Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
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
Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
Hey!
> 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...)
Actually, impossible, even with mlocked userland (*) which is what led
me to abandon going any further with it. The problem is, to commit any
data, one must make a system call, thus consuming more resources. It's
merely a toy, nothing more. Sometimes it might be a useful toy, as nbd,
but nbd, being in kernel, has at least a better chance of solving the
swap problem.
(*) strictly speaking, it is possible to guarantee progress of the
device for read/write only to a finite region of mlocked memory and an
infinite region (limited only by size of off_t) of read-only data
computable with finite mlocked space. Obviously, neither of these
(swap-to-ram), and (swap-over-ro-media) are actually useful for swap.
Zach
--
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