[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:13:50 -0500
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: Greg Kurz <gkurz@...ibm.com>
Cc: Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
arnd@...db.de, Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] first callers of process_deny_checkpoint()
Quoting Greg Kurz (gkurz@...ibm.com):
> On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 09:04 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Remember a part of Ingo's motivation is to push c/r developers to
> > address the lacking features that users use most, earlier. So the
> > warnings and subsequent email complaints are what we're after. Hence a
> > single 'checkpointable or not' flag.
> >
> > Given the single flag, how do you know at sys_mq_unlink() whether the
> > process also has an opensocket?
> >
> > Rather than make this tracking facility more complicated and intrusive,
> > if people complain that they couldn't checkpoint bc of a warning about
> > aio, then we implement aio c/r! We don't just try and reduce the amount
> > of time that you can't checkpoint bc of lack of aio c/r support :)
> >
> > -serge
>
> Serge,
>
> It's exactly what I meant before, the tracking facility would be awfully
> complicated. It cannot be done that way.
> But there's also something awkward with the flag thing : can you provide
> right now an exhaustive list of all the places where you must raise it ?
>
> I'd rather do some heavy checking at checkpoint time.
Noone is saying that we are not going to do that.
-serge
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists