linux-kernel - Re: [Devel] Re: [RFC v2][PATCH 4/9] Memory management

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200809031729.14548.major@openvz.org>
Date:	Wed, 3 Sep 2008 17:29:11 +0400
From:	Andrey Mirkin <major@...nvz.org>
To:	Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com>
Cc:	devel@...nvz.org, Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeremy@...p.org,
	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: [RFC v2][PATCH 4/9] Memory management - dump state

On Wednesday 03 September 2008 16:15 Cedric Le Goater wrote:
> Andrey Mirkin wrote:
> > On Sunday 31 August 2008 21:34 Cedric Le Goater wrote:
> >> Oren Laadan wrote:
> >>> Dave, Serge:
> >>>
> >>> I'm currently away so I must keep this short. I think we have so far
> >>> more discussion than an actual problem. I'm happy to coordinate with
> >>> every interested party to eventually see this work go into main stream.
> >>
> >> thanks. We do need a moderator and federator.
> >>
> >>> My only concerns are twofold: first, to get more feedback I believe we
> >>> need to get the code a bit more usable; including FDs is an excellent
> >>> way to actually do that. That will add significant value to the patch.
> >>
> >> hmm, yes and no.
> >>
> >> fd's are a must have but I would be more interested to see an external
> >> checkpoint/restart and signal support first. why ? because it would be
> >> already usable for most computational programs in HPC, like this stupid
> >> one :
> >>
> >> 	https://www.ccs.uky.edu/~bmadhu/pi/pi1.c
> >>
> >> signals are required because it's how 'load' and/or 'system' managers
> >> interact with the jobs they spawn. external checkpoint/restart for the
> >> same reason.
> >
> > I'm sorry for being out of discussion for so long time.
> > I've just sent a patchset with external checkpoint/restart as it is
> > implemented in OpenVZ.
> > External checkpoint/restart also is very usefull if we will have
> > container's infrastructure in mainstream.
> > It won't be very hard to add support for signals in my patchset. I'll
> > wait for some time for comments and will add support for signals in next
> > version.
>
> OK.
>
> Then, we should be able to have a simple C/R framework (user and kernel) if
> we integrate your patchset or Oren's with Daniel's user tools :
>
> 	http://lxc.cvs.sourceforge.net/lxc/
>
> I was just starting to work on Oren's patchset when you sent yours :)

I will take a look on Daniel's user tools.

Thanks,
Andrey
--
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/