Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Jul 2004 23:40:34 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [ANNOUNCE] Minneapolis Cluster Summit, July 29-30 |
| |
Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > On 2004-07-12T14:01:27, > Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com> said: > > >>I'm not convinced that's a good idea, in that it exposes what is >>basically VM internals to userspace, which then would become a >>set-in-stone interface.... > > > But I'm also not a big fan of moving all HA relevant infrastructure into > the kernel. Membership and DLM are the first ones; then follows > messaging (and reliable and globally ordered messaging is somewhat > complex - but if one node is slow, it will hurt global communication > too, so...), next someone argues that a node always must be able to > report which resources it holds and fence other nodes even under memory > pressure, and there goes the cluster resource manager and fencing > subsystem into the kernel too etc... > > Where's the border? > > And what can we do to make critical user-space infrastructure run > reliably and with deterministic-enough & low latency instead of moving > it all into the kernel? > > Yes, the kernel solves these problems right now, but is that really the > path we want to head down? Maybe it is, I'm not sure, afterall we also > have the entire regular network stack in the kernel, but maybe also it > is not. >
I don't see why it would be a problem to implement a "this task facilitates page reclaim" flag for userspace tasks that would take care of this as well as the kernel does.
There would probably be a few technical things to work out (like GFP_NOFS), but I think it would be pretty trivial to implement. - 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/
| |