Re: [RFC] [PATCH] VM & VFS changes
From: Andre Guibert de Bruet (andy_at_siliconlandmark.com)
Date: 06/02/05
- Previous message: Alexander Leidinger: "Re: [RFC] [PATCH] VM & VFS changes"
- In reply to: Alexander Leidinger: "Re: [RFC] [PATCH] VM & VFS changes"
- Next in thread: Don Lewis: "Re: [RFC] [PATCH] VM & VFS changes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 10:04:43 -0400 (EDT) To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net>
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>
>>> What am I overlooking?
>>
>> Create a large, but nearly empty file system, /a
> ^
> memory/swap based
>
>> Mount a file system backed by a physical disk on /a/b
>> Create the file /a/b/c and configure it to be used as swap
>> Write a large amount of data to the file /a/d, which will overflow RAM
>> and be paged out to /a/b/c
>>
>> It won't be possible to disable swapping to /a/b/c because there is not
>> sufficient RAM to page in the data stored there. It won't be possible
>> to unmount /a/b because /a/b/c is busy. It won't be possible to unmount
>> /a because it is busy because /a/b is mounted on it.
>
> Ah! Yes! I tend to forget this is possible. In my mind a memory/swap based FS
> as a "leaf" in the directory tree... or more correctly, the subtree below the
> memory/swap based FS isn't allowed to contain a mointpoint of a non
> memory/swap based FS. Any other use which may require to break this rule has
> to use symlinks instead and isn't allowed to break the rule.
>
> This helps to avoid some pitfalls.
>
>> If the dependencies are tracked so that this configuration (swapping to
>> anything that is directly or indirectly dependent on a swap-backed file
>> system) can be forbidden, then either the algorithm that I suggested, or
>
> I'm not sure if we should enforce this policy... I like it, but I think such
> a restriction should be configurable via sysctl (enabled by default).
>
>> your iterative algorithm should work. Your algorithm could even be
>> simplified by pulling the swap-off out of the loop.
>>
>> unconfigure md's that are not busy
>> do {
>> foreach filesystem in reverse(mountlist) {
>> unmount filesystem
>> if (success and backed by md)
>> unconfigure md /* either swap or vnode backed */
>> }
>> } while (progress)
>> swap-off
>> do {
>> foreach filesystem in reverse(mountlist) {
>> unmount filesystem
>> if (success and backed by md)
>> unconfigure md /* only vnode backed remain */
>> }
>> } while (progress)
>>
>> Removing the swap-off from the loop may avoid a lot of paging activity
>> because all the paged-out data from swap backed md's will be discarded
>> before swap is disabled.
>
> Sounds even better.
I will try to produce patches tonight for this. Stay tuned!
Cheers!
Andy
/* Andre Guibert de Bruet * 6f43 6564 7020 656f 2e74 4220 7469 6a20 */
/* Code poet / Sysadmin * 636f 656b 2e79 5320 7379 6461 696d 2e6e */
/* GSM: +1 734 846 8758 * 5520 494e 2058 6c73 7565 6874 002e 0000 */
/* WWW: siliconlandmark.com * Tormenting bytes since 1980. */
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Alexander Leidinger: "Re: [RFC] [PATCH] VM & VFS changes"
- In reply to: Alexander Leidinger: "Re: [RFC] [PATCH] VM & VFS changes"
- Next in thread: Don Lewis: "Re: [RFC] [PATCH] VM & VFS changes"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
