Hi.

On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 10:19 -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
quoted text
> 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 run=
s
quoted text
> > out or whatever...=20
>=20
> 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