[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1215709949.9398.15.camel@nimitz>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:12:29 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>,
Kirill Korotaev <dev@...allels.com>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nadia.Derbey@...l.net,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
nick@...k-andrew.net, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Checkpoint/restart (was Re: [PATCH 0/4] - v2 - Object creation
with a specified id)
On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 18:58 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> In the worst case today we can restore a checkpoint by replaying all of
> the user space actions that took us to get there. That is a tedious
> and slow approach.
Yes, tedious and slow, *and* minimally invasive in the kernel. Once we
have a tedious and slow process, we'll have some really good points when
we try to push the next set of patches to make it less slow and tedious.
We'll be able to describe an _actual_ set of problems to our fellow
kernel hackers.
So, the checkpoint-as-a-corefile idea sounds good to me, but it
definitely leaves a lot of questions about exactly how we'll need to do
the restore.
-- Dave
--
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