| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] [RFC] tmem ABI change... backwards compatibility unnecessary
|
To: |
"Xen-Devel (xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tmem-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
Subject: |
[Xen-devel] [RFC] tmem ABI change... backwards compatibility unnecessary? |
|
From: |
Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Date: |
Wed, 1 Sep 2010 07:36:51 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Cc: |
Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, Jeremy, kurt.hackel@xxxxxxxxxx, Vasiliy G Tolstov <v.tolstov@xxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, stephen.spector@xxxxxxxxxx, Chris Mason <chris.mason@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Delivery-date: |
Wed, 01 Sep 2010 07:39:57 -0700 |
|
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
List-help: |
<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
|
List-id: |
Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-post: |
<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-subscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
|
List-unsubscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
|
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
Tmem users and Xen developers/distros --
(Please forward/repost as you see fit.)
After a great deal of discussion and review with linux
kernel developers, it appears there are "next-generation"
filesystems (such as btrfs, xfs, Lustre) that will not
be able to use tmem due to an ABI limitation... a field
that represents a unique file identifier is 64-bits in
the tmem ABI and may need to be as large as 192-bits.
So to support these guest filesystems, the tmem ABI must be
revised, from "v0" to "v1".
I *think* it is still the case that tmem is experimental
and is not used anywhere yet in production. If I am
wrong, PLEASE LET ME KNOW ASAP.
The tmem ABI is designed to support multiple revisions,
so the Xen tmem implementation could be updated to
handle both v0 and v1. However this is a bit
messy and would require data structures for both v0
and v1 to appear in public Xen header files.
I am inclined to update the Xen tmem implementation
to only support v1 and gracefully fail v0. This would
result in only a performance loss (as if tmem were
disabled) for newly launched tmem-v0-enabled guests,
but live-migration between old tmem-v0 Xen and new
tmem-v1 Xen machines would fail, and saved tmem-v0
guests will not be able to be restored on a tmem-v1
Xen machine. I would plan to update both pre-4.0.2
and unstable (future 4.1) to only support v1.
I believe these restrictions are reasonable at this
point in the tmem lifecycle, though they may not
be reasonable in the near future; should the tmem
ABI need to be revised from v1 to v2, I understand
backwards compatibility will be required.
Comments or questions? (If agreeable, positive public
acks appreciated.)
Thanks,
Dan
P.S. For general information on tmem, see:
http://oss.oracle.com/projects/tmem
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home