lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Ksummit-2010-discuss] checkpoint-restart: naked patch
Hello, Pavel.

On 11/18/2010 10:13 AM, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>>> By this do you mean the very idea of having CR support in the kernel?
>>> Or our design of it in the kernel?
>>
>> The former, I'm afraid.
>
> Can you elaborate on this please?

I think I already did that several times in this thread but here's an
attempt at summary.

* It adds a bunch of pseudo ABI when most of the same information is
available via already established ABI.

* In a way which can only ever be used and tested by CR. If possible,
kernel should provide generic mechanisms which can be used to
implement features in userland. One of the reasons why we'd like to
export small basic building blocks instead of full end-to-end
solutions from the kernel is that we don't know how things will
change in the future. In-kernel CR puts too much in the kernel in a
way too inflexible manner.

* It essentially adds a separate complete set of entry/exit points for
a lot of things, which makes things more error prone and increases
maintenance overhead across the board.

* And, most of all, there are userland implementation and
virtualization, making the benefit to overhead ratio completely off.
Userland implementation _already_ achieves most of what's necessary
for the most important use case of HPC without any special help from
the kernel. The only reasonable thing to do is taking a good look
at it and finding ways to improve it.

Thanks.

--
tejun


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-18 10:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans