Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] first callers of process_deny_checkpoint() | Date | Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:17:16 +0200 |
| |
On Friday, 10 of October 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 14:43 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > Hmm, I don't know too much about aio, but is it possible to succeed with > > > io_getevents if we didn't first do a submit? It looks like the contexts > > > are looked up out of current->mm, so I don't think we need this call > > > here. > > > > > > Otherwise, this is neat. > > > > Good question. I know nothing, either. :) > > > > My thought was that any process *trying* to do aio stuff of any kind > > is going to be really confused if it gets checkpointed. Or, it might > > try to submit an aio right after it checks the list of them. I > > thought it best to be cautious and say, if you screw with aio, no > > checkpointing for you! > > as long as there's total transparency and the transition from CR-capable > to CR-disabled state is absolutely safe and race-free, that should be > fine. > > I expect users to quickly cause enough pressure to reduce the NOCR areas > of the kernel significantly ;-) > > In the long run, could we expect a (experimental) version of hibernation > that would just use this checkpointing facility to hibernate?
Surely not ACPI-compliant.
Apart from this I don't see why not, but OTOH I'm not particularly interested in implementing that.
Thanks, Rafael
| |