Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:58:06 -0700 | From | "Nate Diller" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/20] vm deadlock avoidance for NFS, NBD and iSCSI (take 7) |
| |
On 9/12/06, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > Linus, when I mentioned swap over network to you in Ottawa, you said it was > > a valid use case, that people actually do and want this. Can you agree with > > the approach taken in these patches? > > Well, in all honesty, I don't think I really said "valid", but that I said > that some crazy people want to do it, and that we should try to allow them > their foibles. > > So I'd be nervous to do any _guarantees_. I think that good VM policies > should make it be something that works in general (the dirty mapping > limits in particular), but I'd be a bit nervous about anybody taking it > _too_ seriously. Crazy people are still crazy, they just might be right > under certain reasonably-well-controlled circumstances.
(oops, forgot to cc: the list)
Personally, I'm a little unhappy with the added complexity here, I'm not convinced that this extra feature is worth it. In particular, adding to the address_space_operations, the block_device_operations, and creating a new swap index/offset interface just for this seems questionable. I feel like interface bloat should be reserved for features that have widespread use and benefit.
Not that I'm opposed to this feature, just that I think this patch is too invasive interface-wise.
NATE - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |