lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] first callers of process_deny_checkpoint()
    Date
    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


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-10-10 15:15    [W:3.857 / U:0.396 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site