Hi. On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 10:19 -0400, Mark Lord wrote: > Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > > I'm sorry to say it, but dropping process freezing still seems to me > > like the better way though. I prefer it because of the reliability > > aspect. With the current code, having frozen processes, I can look at > > the state of memory, calculate how much I'll need for this or that and > > know that I'll have sufficient memory for the atomic copy and for doing > > the I/O (making assumptions about how much memory drivers will > > allocate) before I start to do either. If we stop freezing processes, > > that predictability will go away. There'll always be a possibility that > > some process will get memory hungry and stop me from being able to get > > the image on disk, and I'll have to either abort or give up and try > > again and again until I can complete writing the image, the battery runs > > out or whatever... > > How about blocking brk() and mmap(MAP_ANONYMOUS) in addition to > the filesystem VFS callers? Or is that starting to get messy again?
Yeah. Getting messy again :) Nigel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part