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


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.

Adding that flag of what you suggest will help make it more vocal and
obvious that a feature isn't supported, even without the user actually
trying to take a checkpoint. I like that I idea.

Oren.

>
> Ingo
> _______________________________________________
> Containers mailing list
> Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-10 17:25    [W:0.191 / U:0.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site