[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48F83458.2080602@fr.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:44:40 +0200
From: Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com>
To: Peter Chubb <peterc@...ato.unsw.edu.au>
CC: Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>,
Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>, jeremy@...p.org,
arnd@...db.de, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrey Mirkin <major@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v6][PATCH 0/9] Kernel based checkpoint/restart
> Oren> For now, yes. But we definitely want this capability in the long
> Oren> run; otherwise we won't be able to checkpoint a kernel compile
> Oren> ('make' uses vfork), or anything with 'gdb' running inside, or
> Oren> 'strace', and other goodies.
>
> The strace/gdb example is *really* hard; but for vfork, you just wait
> until it's over. The interval between vfork and exec/exit should be
> short enough not to affect the overall time for a checkpoint (and
> checkpoint can be fairly slow anyway --- on the HPC machines we used
> to do it on, writing half a terabyte of checkpoint image to disc could take
> many minutes. In hindsight, we should have multithreaded it).
we've tried that and it doesn't change a thing if you have only one disk :)
it might even give worse results as you are increasing context switches.
> Waiting for a vforked process to exec is less than a millisecond.
yes that shouldn't be too hard to handle.
Cheers,
C.
--
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