From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [RFC v11][PATCH 03/13] General infrastructure for checkpoint restart Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:13:03 -0800 Message-ID: <1229472783.17206.358.camel@nimitz> References: <1228498282-11804-1-git-send-email-orenl@cs.columbia.edu> <1228498282-11804-4-git-send-email-orenl@cs.columbia.edu> <49482394.10006@google.com> <1229465641.17206.350.camel@nimitz> <49482F14.1040407@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <49482F14.1040407@google.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Mike Waychison Cc: jeremy@goop.org, arnd@arndb.de, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Linux Torvalds , Alexander Viro , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 14:43 -0800, Mike Waychison wrote: > Hmm, if I'm understanding you correctly, adding ref counts explicitly > (like you suggest below) would be used to let a lower layer defer > writes. Seems like this could be just as easily done with explicits > kmallocs and transferring ownership of the allocated memory to the > in-kernel representation handling layer below (which in turn queues the > data structures for writes). Yup, that's true. We'd effectively shift the burden of freeing those buffers into the cr_write() (or whatever we call it) function. But, I'm just thinking about the sys_checkpoint() side. I need to go look at the restart code too. -- Dave -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org