[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1218242614.19082.65.camel@nimitz>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:43:34 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/4] checkpoint-restart: general infrastructure
On Sat, 2008-08-09 at 00:39 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The main problem I see with that would be atomicity: If you want multiple
> processes to keep interacting with each other, you need to save them at
> the same point in time, which gets harder as you split your interface into
> more than a single file descriptor.
It could take ages to write out a checkpoint even to a single fd, so I
suspect we'd have the exact same kinds of issues either way.
-- 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