From: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>,
Oren Laadan <orenl@cs.columbia.edu>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/8] add f_op for checkpointability
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:37:06 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1235857026.26788.421.camel@nimitz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090228205329.GB4254@infradead.org>
On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 15:53 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:34:31PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > We have set up sane defaults for how filesystems should
> > be checkpointed. However, as usual in the VFS, there
> > are specialized places that will always need an ability
> > to override these defaults.
> >
> > This adds a new 'file_operations' function for
> > checkpointing a file. I did this under the assumption
> > that we should have a dirt-simple way to make something
> > (un)checkpointable that fits in with current code.
> >
> > As you can see in the /dev/null patch in a second, all
> > that we have to do to make something like /dev/null
> > supported is add a single "generic" f_op entry.
>
> Please don't do the fallback to allow checkpointing without file
> operations. We've never had luck with these fallbacks, and I'm
> in the process of getting of the last default file operation (llseek,
> which has a very bad default) currently.
You'll probably believe me when I tell you that I was looking at how
lseek was done when I did this. :)
Doing this will make for a much, much bigger patch, but I do understand
why you're asking for it to be done this way, so I'll give it a shot for
the next round.
> Incidentally that should also allow you to get rid of the per-fs flag
> by just checking for the presence of the operation to check if
> checkpointing is allowed.
Yup, I completely agree. The flag was basically an indicator when it
was OK to do the fallback.
> Also the double-use of the op seem not very nice to me. Is there any
> real life use case were you would have the operation on a file but
> sometimes not allow checkpoiting?
No, I don't have any good concrete ones. The first thing that comes to
mind is something like a pipe. We can checkpoint when there's no data,
but must refuse when there's data in the pipe. In practice, pipes are
fixable, but it is the kind of situation where I expected it to get
used.
Thanks, Christoph.
-- Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-28 21:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-27 20:34 [RFC][PATCH 1/8] kill '_data' in cr_hdr_fd_data name Dave Hansen
2009-02-27 20:34 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/8] breakout fdinfo sprintf() into its own function Dave Hansen
2009-02-27 20:56 ` Vegard Nossum
2009-02-27 21:23 ` Dave Hansen
2009-02-27 20:34 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/8] create fs flags to mark c/r supported fs's Dave Hansen
2009-02-27 21:16 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2009-02-27 21:20 ` Dave Hansen
2009-02-27 20:34 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/8] file c/r: expose functions to query fs support Dave Hansen
2009-02-27 21:14 ` Sukadev Bhattiprolu
2009-02-27 21:24 ` Dave Hansen
2009-02-27 21:32 ` Dave Hansen
2009-02-28 1:33 ` Sukadev Bhattiprolu
2009-02-27 20:34 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/8] add f_op for checkpointability Dave Hansen
2009-02-28 2:14 ` Sukadev Bhattiprolu
2009-02-28 2:51 ` Dave Hansen
2009-02-28 20:53 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-02-28 21:37 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2009-03-01 15:19 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-03-02 17:05 ` Dave Hansen
2009-03-03 13:15 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-03-20 21:13 ` Dave Hansen
2009-03-20 21:30 ` Oren Laadan
2009-02-27 20:34 ` [RFC][PATCH 6/8] mark /dev/null and zero as checkpointable Dave Hansen
2009-02-27 20:34 ` [RFC][PATCH 7/8] add c/r info to fdinfo Dave Hansen
2009-02-27 20:34 ` [RFC][PATCH 8/8] check files for checkpointability Dave Hansen
2009-02-28 2:57 ` Sukadev Bhattiprolu
2009-03-01 17:00 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-03-04 23:41 ` Dave Hansen
2009-03-01 19:43 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-03-02 13:37 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-03-02 15:56 ` Dave Hansen
2009-03-02 15:59 ` Nathan Lynch
2009-03-02 16:27 ` Dave Hansen
2009-03-02 17:22 ` Nathan Lynch
2009-03-02 17:30 ` Dave Hansen
2009-03-02 17:44 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-03-02 17:58 ` Dave Hansen
2009-03-02 18:13 ` Dave Hansen
2009-03-02 18:35 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-03-05 8:20 ` Cedric Le Goater
2009-03-02 16:28 ` Serge E. Hallyn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1235857026.26788.421.camel@nimitz \
--to=dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=containers@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=orenl@cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=serue@us.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).