Re: [ANNOUNCE] Minneapolis Cluster Summit, July 29-30

[Nick Piggin]

Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2004-07-12T14:01:27,
>    Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@xxxxxxxxxx> said:
>
>
> > I'm not convinced that's a good idea, in that it exposes what is
> > basically VM internals to userspace, which then would become a
> > set-in-stone interface....
>
>
> But I'm also not a big fan of moving all HA relevant infrastructure into
> the kernel. Membership and DLM are the first ones; then follows
> messaging (and reliable and globally ordered messaging is somewhat
> complex - but if one node is slow, it will hurt global communication
> too, so...), next someone argues that a node always must be able to
> report which resources it holds and fence other nodes even under memory
> pressure, and there goes the cluster resource manager and fencing
> subsystem into the kernel too etc...
>
> Where's the border? 
>
> And what can we do to make critical user-space infrastructure run
> reliably and with deterministic-enough & low latency instead of moving
> it all into the kernel?
>
> Yes, the kernel solves these problems right now, but is that really the
> path we want to head down? Maybe it is, I'm not sure, afterall we also
> have the entire regular network stack in the kernel, but maybe also it
> is not.

I don't see why it would be a problem to implement a "this task
facilitates page reclaim" flag for userspace tasks that would take
care of this as well as the kernel does.

There would probably be a few technical things to work out (like
GFP_NOFS), but I think it would be pretty trivial to implement.
-
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/