lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] Track in-kernel when we expect checkpoint/restart to work

* Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@fr.ibm.com> wrote:

>> By the way, why don't you introduce the reverse operation ?
>
> I think implementing the reverse operation will be a nightmare, IMHO
> it is safe to say we deny checkpointing for the process life-cycle
> either if the created resource was destroyed before we initiate the
> checkpoint.

it's also a not too interesting case. The end goal is to just be able to
checkpoint everything that matters - in the long run there simply wont
be many places that are marked 'cannot checkpoint'.

So the ability to deny a checkpoint is a transitional feature - a
flexible CR todo list in essence - but also needed for
applications/users that want to rely on CR being a dependable facility.

It would be bad for most of the practical usecases of checkpointing to
allow the checkpointing of an app, just to see it break on restore due
to lost context.

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-10 17:07    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site