lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Allow userspace block device implementation
Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!

Hey!

> And yes, I believe that's show stopper. OTOH if you _can_ solve
> that... then you have some rather significant advantage over nbd.
>
> (But guaranteeing progress for dirty writeout will be tricky even with
> mlocked userland, AFAICT...)

Actually, impossible, even with mlocked userland (*) which is what led
me to abandon going any further with it. The problem is, to commit any
data, one must make a system call, thus consuming more resources. It's
merely a toy, nothing more. Sometimes it might be a useful toy, as nbd,
but nbd, being in kernel, has at least a better chance of solving the
swap problem.

(*) strictly speaking, it is possible to guarantee progress of the
device for read/write only to a finite region of mlocked memory and an
infinite region (limited only by size of off_t) of read-only data
computable with finite mlocked space. Obviously, neither of these
(swap-to-ram), and (swap-over-ro-media) are actually useful for swap.

Zach


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-11 00:55    [W:0.100 / U:0.104 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site