Re: "Enhanced" MD code avaible for review

From: Justin T. Gibbs (gibbs_at_scsiguy.com)
Date: 03/26/04

  • Next message: Rik van Riel: "Re: Patching a proprietary driver" 
    Date:	Fri, 26 Mar 2004 10:43:09 -0700
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>

    >>> I respectfully disagree with the EMD folks that a userland approach is
    >>> impossible, given all the failure scenarios.
    >>
    >>
    >> I've never said that it was impossible, just unwise. I believe
    >> that a userland approach offers no benefit over allowing the kernel
    >> to perform all meta-data operations. The end result of such an
    >> approach (given feature and robustness parity with the EMD solution)
    >> is a larger resident side, code duplication, and more complicated
    >> configuration/management interfaces.
    >
    > There is some code duplication, yes. But the right userspace solution
    > does not have a larger RSS, and has _less_ complicated management
    > interfaces.
    >
    > A key benefit of "do it in userland" is a clear gain in flexibility,
    > simplicity, and debuggability (if that's a word).

    This is just as much hand waving as, 'All that just screams "do it in
    userland".' <sigh>

    I posted a rather detailed, technical, analysis of what I believe would
    be required to make this work correctly using a userland approach. The
    only response I've received is from Neil Brown. Please, point out, in
    a technical fashion, how you would address the feature set being proposed:

     o Rebuilds
     o Auto-array enumeration
     o Meta-data updates for topology changes (failed members, spare activation)
     o Meta-data updates for "safe mode"
     o Array creation/deletion
     o "Hot member addition"

    Only then can a true comparative analysis of which solution is "less
    complex", "more maintainable", and "smaller" be performed.

    > But it's hard. It requires some deep thinking. It's a whole lot easier
    > to do everything in the kernel -- but that doesn't offer you the
    > protections of userland, particularly separate address spaces from the
    > kernel, and having to try harder to crash the kernel. :)

    A crash in any component of a RAID solution that prevents automatic
    failover and rebuilds without customer intervention is unacceptable.
    Whether it crashes your kernel or not is really not that important other
    than the customer will probably notice that their data is no longer
    protected *sooner* if the system crashes. In other-words, the solution
    must be *correct* regardless of where it resides. Saying that doing
    a portion of it in userland allows it to safely be buggier seems a very
    strange argument. 

    --
Justin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
  • Next message: Rik van Riel: "Re: Patching a proprietary driver"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Attempted summary of "RT patch acceptance" thread
      ... tries to keep the userland API as close as possible to the non-RT one, ... by increasing the kernel complexity with relative slowdown. ... RTAI quickly becomes useless (ok it can run nanosleep with fusion fine, ... RTAI/rtlinux as the only hard-RT with guaranteed deadline. ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: [RFC] Splitting kernel headers and deprecating __KERNEL__
      ... >> two parties on an ABI doesn't imply that one party gets to define it ... imposition, kernel developers won't care. ... because there's a contract with userland that they don't want to ... change in the copy/extract/whatever of kernel headers that userland is ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • [PATCH] broken bitmap_parse for ncpus > 32
      ... rather than drag over the kernel versions. ... I tested this in userland with the kernel's versions of bitmap_shift_* ... void bitmap_shift_right(unsigned long *dst, ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: "Enhanced" MD code avaible for review
      ... The RAID transforms which perform this operation are kernel ... For a "do it in userland" solution, ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: From Eric Anholt:
      ... >> care to comment? ... userland and kernel, and nothing else. ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)