| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4CE3C6A7.1060508@kernel.org> Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 13:12:23 +0100 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Kapil Arya <kapil@....neu.edu> CC: Gene Cooperman <gene@....neu.edu>, Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>, ksummit-2010-discuss@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@....de Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2010-discuss] checkpoint-restart: naked patch On 11/17/2010 11:45 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: >> Since /proc/*/net provides a simpler design for sockets, we started >> wondering what other simplifications may be possible. Here is one >> possibility, in the case of shared file descriptors, DMTCP goes >> through two barriers in order to decide which process will be >> responsible for checkpointing which shared-file descriptor. It works >> and the overhead is reasonable, but if you have additional >> suggestion for this case, we would be very interested. > > I wrote in another mail but you can find out which fd's are shared by > flipping O_NONBLOCK and looking at the flags field of > /proc/*/fdinfo/*. Or are you talking about something else? Ooh, one more thing, /proc/*/net/* has tx/rx queue counts. With those, you wouldn't need the cookie based connection draining, right? Thanks. -- tejun -- 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