lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: Checkpoint/restart (was Re: [PATCH 0/4] - v2 - Object creation with a specified id)
    "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com> writes:

    >> So, the checkpoint-as-a-corefile idea sounds good to me, but it
    >> definitely leaves a lot of questions about exactly how we'll need to do
    >> the restore.
    >
    > Talking with Dave over irc, I kind of liked the idea of creating a new
    > fs/binfmt_cr.c that executes a checkpoint-as-a-coredump file.
    >
    > One thing I do not like about the checkpoint-as-coredump is that it begs
    > us to dump all memory out into the file. Our plan/hope was to save
    > ourselves from writing out most memory by:
    >
    > 1. associating a separate swapfile with each container
    > 2. doing a swapfile snapshot at each checkpoint
    > 3. dumping the pte entries (/proc/self/)
    >
    > If we do checkpoint-as-a-coredump, then we need userspace to coordinate
    > a kernel-generated coredump with a user-generated (?) swapfile snapshot.
    > But I guess we figure that out later.

    Well it is a matter of which VMAs you dump. For things that are file backed
    you need to dump them.

    I don't know that even a binfmt for per process level checkpoints is sufficient
    but I do know having something of that granularity looks much easier. Otherwise
    it takes a bazillian little syscalls to do things no one else is interested in doing.

    Eric


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-07-10 21:09    [W:0.026 / U:1.032 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site