Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 28 Nov 2010 23:09:51 -0500 | From | Gene Cooperman <> | Subject | Re: [Ksummit-2010-discuss] checkpoint-restart: naked patch |
| |
Hi Oren,
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:04:16AM -0500, Oren Laadan wrote: > On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Kapil Arya wrote: > > > OL> Even if it did - the question is not how to deal with "glue" > > OL> (you demonstrated quite well how to do that with DMTCP), but > > OL> how should teh basic, core c/r functionality work - which is > > OL> below, and orthogonal to the "glue". > > > > There seems to be an implicit assumption that it is easy to separate the DMTCP > > "glue code" from the DMTCP C/R engine as separate modules. DMTCP is modular but > > it splits the problems into modules along a different line than Linux C/R. We > > look forward to the joint experiment in which we would try to combine DMTCP > > with Linux C/R. This will help answer the question in our mind. > > I apologize for being blunt - but this is probably an issue specific to > DMTCP's engineering... >
I completely agree with you, Oren. DMTCP was never designed to be split into a userland and in-kernel replacement. We will want to re-factor DMTCP to make this happen. I'm sorry if my e-mail came off as confrontational. That was not my intention. I was just looking forward to an interesting intellectual experiment --- how to go about combining DMTCP and Linux C/R. I was trying to guess ahead of time where there are interesting challenges, and my hope is that we will find a way to solve them together.
Best wishes, - Gene
| |