[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101119035403.GA24031@hallyn.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 21:54:03 -0600
From: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Kapil Arya <kapil@....neu.edu>,
Gene Cooperman <gene@....neu.edu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2010-discuss] checkpoint-restart: naked patch
Quoting Tejun Heo (tj@...nel.org):
> * And, most of all, there are userland implementation and
> virtualization, making the benefit to overhead ratio completely off.
> Userland implementation _already_ achieves most of what's necessary
Guess I'll just be offensive here and say, straight-out: I don't
believe it. Can I see the userspace implementation of c/r?
If it's as good as the kernel level c/r, then aweseome - we don't
need the kernel patches.
If it's not as good, then the thing is, we're not drawing arbitrary
lines saying "is this good enough", rather we want completely
reliable and transparent c/r. IOW, the running task and the other
end can't tell that a migration happened, and, if checkpoint says
it worked, then restart must succeed.
-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