Message-ID: <20090305210840.GA2499@x200.localdomain>
Date:	Fri, 6 Mar 2009 00:08:40 +0300
From:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To:	Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/11] track files for checkpointability

On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 11:16:07AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 20:40 +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 08:38:57AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > This takes a suggestion of Ingo's along with comments from lots of
> > > other people.  It can track whether a given file is able to be
> > > checkpointed.  It introduces a f_op to allow easy customization
> > > like the reset of the VFS.
> > 
> > Here is how alternative looks like
> > * without touching VFS at all
> > * without adding default handlers
> 
> Are these bad things?  If this was harmful to the VFS, I can bet
> Christoph would be speaking up.  As far as the default handlers, blame
> Christoph. :)

It's too much for too little and unreliable. See below.

> > * without duplicate code every ->checkpoint hook will have
> 
> Well, I had actually planned to break the generic function up into a
> "common" function that all of the handlers can call or could be called
> before each handler.  This is trivially fixable, but it would look kinda
> goofy without some code to use it.
> 
> > * without largely useless "special file" messages
> >   (what's so special about it?)
> 
> Very true.  I'll improve that one.
> 
> > * without adding userspace-visible /proc/*/checkpointable 
> 
> Ingo, could you weigh in on how you expected this "checkpointable" flag
> to get exposed to and checked by userspace?
> 
> > * without recalculating "checkpointable" property on fs_struct
> >   on every C/R=y kernel.
> 
> Yeah, this is certainly less than ideal.  Although, I haven't seen your
> proposal for where to tie your code into the kernel.  Do you suggest
> that we do nothing during normal kernel runtime and all the checking at
> sys_checkpoint() time?

Of course!

C/R won't be used by majority of users, so it shouldn't bring any
overhead. ->f_op->checkpoint (not ->checkpointable!) is probably
acceptable. Recalculating flags is not, sorry.

Imagine, unsupported file is opened between userspace checks
for /proc/*/checkpointable and /proc/*/fdinfo/*/checkpointable
and whatever, you stil have to do all the checks inside checkpoint(2).

> > It may lack some printk, but printks are trivial to insert including
> > using d_path for precise info.
> 
> This is definitely workable approach.  However, could you show how you
> would support /dev/null and, say, /proc/$$/stat?  I've shown what it
> takes to do that in my patches, and I think it would show a lot about
> your approach.  

I haven't yet written code for /dev/null, but it would be:
* at checkpoint(2)
	** see it's block device
	** see it's 1:3 => supported
	** dump "1:3", dump "/dev/null" as filename
* at restore(2)
	** read CR_OBJ_FILE
	** open filename or -E
	** if not block device return -E
	** if not 1:3 return -E
	** save "struct file *" where needed

(all of this is modulo unlinked case)

/proc/*/stat is much trickier (and BTW can very well ruin idea of piping
dumpfile to somewhere by introducing honest loops in restoration hierarchy)
--
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