[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090224194329.GC24007@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:43:29 -0600
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/5] check files for checkpointability
Quoting Dave Hansen (dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com):
> On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 19:10 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > This allows us to tell where and when we went wrong. Take a process
> > > that's been running for a month. After 5 days it did something random
> > > to keep it from being checkpointed. You're going to have forgotten all
> > > about it 25 days later. This gives us an opportunity to spit into dmesg
> > > or just plain log it. It also gives the app some ability to reflect and
> > > see what its uncheckpointable attributes are.
> >
> > Hmm. In that case, rather than refuse checkpoint, I prefer that we make
> > this a footnote in the /proc/$$/checkpointable output.
>
> Yeah, that's cool. If we were smart, we'd also get hooked into some of
> the ftrace output so that we have a real chance of logging these things
> and being able to go look at something about them down the line.
How exactly woudl that work? Would that work as a *replacement* for
filling up the logs as I was recommending? If so I'm all for it...
-serge
--
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