![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > I'm sorry to say it, but dropping process freezing still seems to me > like the better way though. I prefer it because of the reliability > aspect. With the current code, having frozen processes, I can look at > the state of memory, calculate how much I'll need for this or that and > know that I'll have sufficient memory for the atomic copy and for doing > the I/O (making assumptions about how much memory drivers will > allocate) before I start to do either. If we stop freezing processes, > that predictability will go away. There'll always be a possibility that > some process will get memory hungry and stop me from being able to get > the image on disk, and I'll have to either abort or give up and try > again and again until I can complete writing the image, the battery runs > out or whatever... How about blocking brk() and mmap(MAP_ANONYMOUS) in addition to the filesystem VFS callers? Or is that starting to get messy again? Cheers - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-05-29 14:23 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||