[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1236011251.26788.450.camel@nimitz>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 08:27:31 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Nathan Lynch <ntl@...ox.com>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
hch@...radead.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 8/8] check files for checkpointability
On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 09:59 -0600, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 07:37:54 -0600
> "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > So on a practical note, Ingo's scheme appears to be paying off. In
> > order for any program's files_struct to be checkpointable right now,
> > it must be statically compiled, else ld.so (I assume) looks up
> > /proc/$$/status. So since proc is not checkpointable, the result
> > is irreversibly non-checkpointable.
> >
> > So... does it make sense to mark proc as checkpointable? Do we
> > reasonably assume that the same procfile will be available at
> > restart?
>
> With respect to /proc/$x/* where $x is the pid the restarted task wants,
> is that not a chicken-and-egg problem?
Do you mean that we have to go look into /proc to figure out which task
we want before we can checkpoint it? That makes the process *doing* the
checkpoint uncheckpointable, but no the process being examined.
Anyway, I'll fix /proc. It is pretty important.
-- 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