Re: [Ksummit-2010-discuss] checkpoint-restart: naked patch

[Davide Libenzi]

On Sat, 6 Nov 2010, Matt Helsley wrote:

> Yes, our patches touch a wide variety of kernel code. You have just failed
> to appreciate how "wide" the kernel ABI truly is. You can't really count
> it by number of syscalls, number of pseudo-filesystems, etc. There's
> also the intended behavior of those interfaces to consider. Each piece
> of checkpoint/restart code is relatively self-contained. This can be
> confirmed merely by looking at many of the patches we've already posted
> enabling checkpoint/restart of that feature. Until you've tried to
> implement checkpoint/restart for an interface or until you've bothered
> to review a patch for one of them (my favorite on is eventfd:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/devel@xxxxxxxxxx/msg21565.html ) please
> don't tell us it's too complex. Then compare that with your proposed
> ghastly stack of userspace cards -- ptrace (really more like strace) +
> LD_PRELOAD + a daemon...
> 
> Incidentally, 20k lines of code is less than many pieces of the kernel.
> It's less than many:
> 
> Filesystems (I've selected ones designed for rotating media or networks usually..)
> 	ext4, nfs, ocfs2, xfs, reiserfs, ntfs, gfs2, jfs, cifs, ubifs, nilfs2, btrfs
> 
> Non-filesystem file-system support code:
> 	nfsd, nls
> 
> It's less than one of the simpler DRM graphics drivers -- i915:
> 	$ cd drivers/gpu/drm/i915
> 	$ wc -l *.[ch]
> 	...
> 	41481 total
> 
> It's less than any one of the lpfc, bfa, aic7xxx, qla2xxx, and mpt2sas
> drivers I see under scsi. Perhaps a more fair comparison might be to compare
> a single driver to a single checkpointable kernel interface but it's
> a more-fair comparison that skews even more in our favor.

Please, do not compare things like single file systems, drivers, or 
otherwise fairly isolated components, with this "thing".
This thing touches a freaky-large number of subsystems, effectively 
adding a glueage between them, which can might end up causing problems 
(and/or restrict design choices) in the future.
The naked patch looks like just a sugar coating to me, which left out 300+ 
lines of extra logic in epoll alone.
This is one of the widest, deepest, intrusive patches I have seen in a 
while, whose inclusion would require a little bit more than handwaving and 
continuous re-posting IMO.



- Davide


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/