Re: [Ksummit-2010-discuss] checkpoint-restart: naked patch
- From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 14:59:27 -0800 (PST)
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010, Matt Helsley wrote:
Yes, our patches touch a wide variety of kernel code. You have just failed
to appreciate how "wide" the kernel ABI truly is. You can't really count
it by number of syscalls, number of pseudo-filesystems, etc. There's
also the intended behavior of those interfaces to consider. Each piece
of checkpoint/restart code is relatively self-contained. This can be
confirmed merely by looking at many of the patches we've already posted
enabling checkpoint/restart of that feature. Until you've tried to
implement checkpoint/restart for an interface or until you've bothered
to review a patch for one of them (my favorite on is eventfd:
http://www.mail-archive.com/devel@xxxxxxxxxx/msg21565.html ) please
don't tell us it's too complex. Then compare that with your proposed
ghastly stack of userspace cards -- ptrace (really more like strace) +
LD_PRELOAD + a daemon...
Incidentally, 20k lines of code is less than many pieces of the kernel.
It's less than many:
Filesystems (I've selected ones designed for rotating media or networks usually..)
ext4, nfs, ocfs2, xfs, reiserfs, ntfs, gfs2, jfs, cifs, ubifs, nilfs2, btrfs
Non-filesystem file-system support code:
nfsd, nls
It's less than one of the simpler DRM graphics drivers -- i915:
$ cd drivers/gpu/drm/i915
$ wc -l *.[ch]
...
41481 total
It's less than any one of the lpfc, bfa, aic7xxx, qla2xxx, and mpt2sas
drivers I see under scsi. Perhaps a more fair comparison might be to compare
a single driver to a single checkpointable kernel interface but it's
a more-fair comparison that skews even more in our favor.
Please, do not compare things like single file systems, drivers, or
otherwise fairly isolated components, with this "thing".
This thing touches a freaky-large number of subsystems, effectively
adding a glueage between them, which can might end up causing problems
(and/or restrict design choices) in the future.
The naked patch looks like just a sugar coating to me, which left out 300+
lines of extra logic in epoll alone.
This is one of the widest, deepest, intrusive patches I have seen in a
while, whose inclusion would require a little bit more than handwaving and
continuous re-posting IMO.
- Davide
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: [Ksummit-2010-discuss] checkpoint-restart: naked patch
- From: Tejun Heo
- Re: [Ksummit-2010-discuss] checkpoint-restart: naked patch
- From: Oren Laadan
- Re: [Ksummit-2010-discuss] checkpoint-restart: naked patch
- From: Tejun Heo
- Re: [Ksummit-2010-discuss] checkpoint-restart: naked patch
- From: Matt Helsley
- Re: [Ksummit-2010-discuss] checkpoint-restart: naked patch
- Prev by Date: Re: [patch 1/4] memcg: use native word to represent dirtyable pages
- Next by Date: Re: gcc 4.5.1 / as 2.20.51.0.11 miscompiling drivers/char/i8k.c ?
- Previous by thread: Re: [Ksummit-2010-discuss] checkpoint-restart: naked patch
- Next by thread: Re: [Ksummit-2010-discuss] checkpoint-restart: naked patch
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|