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

* Oren Laadan <orenl@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:

>
>
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * 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.
>
> Actually it need not wait for restore to fail - it can fail during the
> checkpoint, as soon as the unsupported feature is encountered.

correct, that is the idea.

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-10 17:33    [W:0.183 / U:0.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site