[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1234992447.26788.12.camel@nimitz>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:27:27 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...tin.ibm.com>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
mpm@...enic.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hpa@...or.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de, xemul@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: What can OpenVZ do?
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 19:16 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Nothing motivates more than app designers complaining about the
> one-way flag.
>
> Furthermore, it's _far_ easier to make a one-way flag SMP-safe.
> We just set it and that's it. When we unset it, what do we about
> SMP races with other threads in the same MM installing another
> non-linear vma, etc.
After looking at this for file descriptors, I have to really agree with
Ingo on this one, at least as far as the flag is concerned. I want to
propose one teeny change, though: I think the flag should be
per-resource.
We should have one flag in mm_struct, one in files_struct, etc... The
task_is_checkpointable() function can just query task->mm, task->files,
etc... This gives us nice behavior at clone() *and* fork that just
works.
I'll do this for files_struct and see how it comes out so you can take a
peek.
-- 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