On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 01:47 -0600, Nathan Lynch wrote: > But I think this has been pointed out before. If I understand the > justification for cr_hbuf_get correctly, the allocations it services > are somehow known to be bounded in size and nesting. But even if that > is the case, it's not much of a reason to avoid using kmalloc, is it?
Oren wants this particular facility to be used for live migration. To support good live migration, we need to be able to return from the syscall as fast as possible. To do that, Oren proposed that we buffer all the data needed for the checkpoint inside the kernel. The current cr_hbuf_put/get() could easily be modified to support this usage by basically making put() do nothing, then handing off a handle to the cr_ctx structure elsewhere in the kernel. When the time comes to free up the in-memory image, you only have one simple structure to go free (the hbuf) as opposed to a bunch of little kmalloc()'d objects. I'm sure I'm missing something. I'm also sure that this *will* work eventually. But, I don't think the code as it stands supports keeping the abstraction in there. It is virtually impossible to debate the design or its alternatives in this state. -- Dave _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list contain...@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
