[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [Devel] Re: [PATCH 0/9] OpenVZ kernel based checkpointing/restart
    On Monday 27 October 2008 17:39 Oren Laadan wrote:
    > Andrey Mirkin wrote:
    > > On Monday 20 October 2008 19:55 Dave Hansen wrote:
    > >> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 16:14 +0400, Andrey Mirkin wrote:
    > >>> Right now my patchset (v2) provides an ability to checkpoint and
    > >>> restart a group of processes. The process of checkpointing and restart
    > >>> can be initiated from external process (not from the process which
    > >>> should be checkpointed).
    > >>
    > >> Absolutely. Oren's code does it this way to make for a smaller patch at
    > >> first. The syscall takes a pid argument so it is surely expected to be
    > >> expanded upon later.
    > >>
    > >>> Also I think that all the restart job (including process forking)
    > >>> should be done in kernel, as in this case we will not depend on user
    > >>> space and will be more secure. This is also implemented in my patchset.
    > >>
    > >> Do you think that this is an approach that Oren's patches are married
    > >> to, or is this a "feature" we can add on later?
    > >
    > > Well, AFAICS from Oren's patch set his approach is oriented on process
    > > creation in user space. I think we should choose right now what approach
    > > will be used for process creation.
    > This is inaccurate.
    > I intentionally did not address how processes will be created, by
    > simply allowing either way to be added to the patch.

    Yes, you right. Either way is possible with your patchset. But as I understand
    in ZAP you are using user space process creation. No?
    That is why I think that your design is more convenient for user process

    > I do agree that we probably want to decide how to do it. However,
    > there is also room to allow for both approaches, in a compatible
    > way, should we wish to explore both.

    Yes, we can implement both approaches. Do you think we really need this?

    > > We have two options here: fork processes in kernel or fork them in user
    > > space. If process will be forked in user space, then there will be a gap
    > > when process will be in user space and can be killed with received signal
    > > before entering
    > Why do we care about it ?
    > Why is there a difference if it is killed before or after entering
    > the kernel (e.g. user aborted restart, or kernel OOM kicked in) ?

    If one process is killed during restart then you can even do not notice that
    (if processes are created from user space and then call sys_restart). And you
    will get not the same state as before C/R.

    > > kernel. Also we will need a functionolity to create processes with
    > > predefined PID. I think it is not very good to provide such ability to
    > > user space. That is why we prefer in OpenVZ to do all the job in kernel.
    > This is the weak side of creating the processes in user space -
    > that we need such an interface. Note, however, that we can
    > easily "hide" it inside the interface of the sys_restart() call,
    > and restrict how it may be used.

    Of course we can "hide" it somehow, but anyway we will have a hole and that is
    not good.

    Anyway we should ask everyone what they think about user- and kernel- based
    process creation.
    Dave, Serge, Cedric, Daniel, Louis what do you think about that?


    > >> I don't care which patch set we end up sticking in the kernel. I'm
    > >> trying to figure out which code we can more easily build upon in the
    > >> future. The fact that Oren's or yours can't do certain little things
    > >> right now does not bother me.
    > >>
    > >> Honestly, I'm a little more confident that everyone can work with Oren
    > >> since he managed to get 7 revisions of his patch out and make some
    > >> pretty large changes while in the same time the OpenVZ patch was only
    > >> released twice. I'm not sure what has changed in the OpenVZ patch
    > >> between releases, either.
    > >
    > > That is my fault. I am working right now on my Ph.D, that is why my
    > > activity is not very high. But now I hope I will have more time for that.
    > >
    > >> Are there any reasons that you absolutely can not use the code Oren
    > >> posted? Will it not fulfill your needs somehow? If so, could you
    > >> please elaborate on how?
    > >
    > > We have one major difference with Oren's code - how processes are created
    > > during restr.
    > > Right now I'm trying to port kernel process creation on top of Oren's
    > > patches. I agree that working in collaboration will speed up merging of
    > > checkpointing to mainstream.
    > >
    > > Andrey
    > >
    > > P.S.: Sorry for late reply, my mailer attached your e-mail to wrong
    > > thread. _______________________________________________
    > > Containers mailing list
    > >
    > >

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-10-30 07:05    [W:0.034 / U:6.124 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site