[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC v13][PATCH 00/14] Kernel based checkpoint/restart
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 13:30 -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 10:11 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > * Filesystem state
> > * contents of files
> > * mount tree for individual processes
> > * flock
> > * threads and sessions
> > * CPU and NUMA affinity
> > * sys_remap_file_pages()
> I think the real questions is: where are the dragons hiding? Some of
> these are known to be hard. And some of them are critical checkpointing
> typical applications. If you have plans or theories for implementing all
> of the above, then great. But this list doesn't really give any sense of
> whether we should be scared of what lurks behind those doors.

This is probably a better question for people like Pavel, Alexey and
Cedric to answer.

> Some of these things we probably don't have to care too much about. For
> instance, contents of files - these can legitimately change for a
> running process. Open TCP/IP sockets can legitimately get reset as well.
> But others are a bigger deal.

Legitimately, yes. But, practically, these are things that we need to
handle because we want to make any checkpoint/restart as transparent as
possible. Resetting people's network connections is not exactly illegal
but not very nice or transparent either.

> Also, what happens if I checkpoint a process in 2.6.30 and restore it in
> 2.6.31 which has an expanded idea of what should be restored? Do your
> file formats handle this sort of forward compatibility or am I
> restricted to one kernel?

In general, you're restricted to one kernel. But, people have mentioned
that, if the formats change, we should be able to write in-userspace
converters for the checkpoint files.

-- Dave

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-13 00:01    [W:0.207 / U:6.604 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site