lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] Disk shock protection (revisited)
> The general idea: A daemon running in user space monitors input data
> from an accelerometer. When the daemon detects a critical condition,

That sounds like a non starter. What if the box is busy, what if the
daemon or something you touch needs memory and causes paging ?

Given the accelerometer data should be very simple doesn't it actually
make sense in this specific case to put the logic (not thresholds) in
kernel space.

> state. To this end, the kernel has to issue an idle immediate command
> with unload feature and stop the block layer queue afterwards. Once the

Yep. Pity the worst case completion time for an IDE I/O is 60 seconds or
so.

> 1. Who is to be in charge for the shock protection application? Should
> userspace speak to libata / ide directly (through sysfs) and the low

I think it has to be kernel side for speed, and because you will need to
issue idle immediate while a command sequence is active which is
*extremely* hairy as you have to recover from the mess and restart the
relevant I/O. Plus you may need controller specific knowledge on issuing
it (and changes to libata).

> 2. Depending on the answer to the previous question, by what mechanism
> should block layer and lld interact? Special requests, queue hooks or
> something in some way similar to power management functions (once
> suggested by James Bottomley)?

Idle immediate seem to simply fit the queue model, it happens in
*parallel* to I/O events and is special in all sorts of ways.

> 3. What is the preferred way to pass device specific configuration
> options to libata (preferrably at runtime, i.e., after module
> loading)?

sysfs


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-02-26 13:53    [W:0.158 / U:1.300 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site