lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 10/30] cr: core stuff
> >> The ability to streamline the checkpoint image IMHO is invaluable.
> >> It's the unix way (TM) of doing things; it makes the process pipe-able.
> >>
> >> You can do many nice things when the checkpoint can be streamed: you
> >> can compress, sign, encrypt etc on the fly without taking additional
> >> diskspace. You can transfer over the network (e.g. for migration),
> >> or store remotely without explicit file system support. You can easily
> >> transform the stream from one c/r version to another etc.
> >>
> >> This should be a design principle. In my experience I never hit a wall
> >> that forced me to "sacrifice" this decision.
> >>
> >>> sacrifised (read: child can ptrace parent)
> >> Hmmm... if all tasks are created in user space, then this specific
> >> becomes a no-brainer !
> >
> > No!
>
> Actually yes :)
>
> >
> > A ptraces B. Container is checkpointed.
> >
> > Kernel realizes ptrace is going on. A and B in theory can have any
> > realitionship.
> >
> > Consequently, kernel doesn't know in which order to dump A and B.
> >
> > And there is no such order:
> > *) A can be parent of B (you dump A, B),
> > *) A can be child of B (you want to dump B, A, but this conflicts with
> > ->real_parent order)
> > *) A and B just tasks (any order).
>
> Current code does not support ptrace() - which has a multitude
> if tidy-bits issues to solve during restart regardless.
>
> However, creating tasks in userspace uses (and will uses) only
> "real" process relationships, not ptrace-relationships, when it
> comes to decide on the fork/clone order.
>
> Technically, that can be done in checkpoint (dumping the task tree)
> or in restart-user-space (rearranging the data before fork/clone).
>
> >
> > I'm showing that whole issue can be avoided:
>
> If the issue can be avoided, then why would you need to sacrifice
> the stream-ability of the checkpoint image ?
>
> > *) all tasks are simply created regardless of who is parent of whom
> > (see kernel_thread())
> > *) Every task_struct image among other things contains references to
> > ->real_parent and ->parent.
> > *) After every task is created it's time to change references:
> > **) lookup who is ->real_parent, change ->real_parent _by hand_
> > not with some "correct clone(2)" order.
> > **) lookup who is ->parent, change ->parent.
> >
> > You're probably escaping all of this with object numbers?
>
> (Will be) escaping this by arranging to fork/clone in the proper order.

task_struct and reparenting is just an example.

There is another loop:

struct user_struct => struct user_namespace => struct user_namespace::creator

Before actual dump each struct user_struct gets unique id (objref, whatever)
and simply dumped regardless of order.

Image of struct user_namespace contains id of creator user and dumped.

On restart:
restart user_ns
restart user
lookup object by creator id
if found, rewrite ->creator
if not found, restore creator user, and rewrite ->creator.

So, yes, if object number is dumped on disk, you get streamability in
presence of loops.

Clever. Just needs a way to quickly lookup file position by object id.

BTW, this is why OpenVZ code have "section concept.
I hoped it won't be needed.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-14 21:03    [W:0.062 / U:1.896 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site