[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6599ad830904141706j46d59a00r9f497dd34ec29d9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:06:57 -0700
From: Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>, xemul@...allels.com,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: "partial" container checkpoint
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 10:29 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>> I think the perceived need for it comes, as above, from the pure
>> checkpoint-a-whole-container-only view. So long as you will
>> checkpoint/restore a whole container, then you'll end up doing
>> something requiring privilege anyway. But that is not all of
>> the use cases.
>
> Yeah, there are certainly a lot of shades of gray here. I've been
> talking to some HPC guys in the last couple of days. They certainly
> have a need for checkpoint/restart, but much less of a need for doing
> entire containers.
We'd certainly like the ability to migrate jobs that might be in their
own pid namespace, but not in their own network/IPC/user/etc
namespaces.
Paul
--
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