linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Oren Laadan <orenl@cs.columbia.edu>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
	hch@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 8/8] check files for checkpointability
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 07:37:54 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090302133754.GA8033@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090227203435.98735E54@kernel>

Quoting Dave Hansen (dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com):
> 
> Introduce a files_struct counter to indicate whether a particular
> file_struct has ever contained a file which can not be
> checkpointed.  This flag is a one-way trip; once it is set, it may
> not be unset.
> 
> We assume at allocation that a new files_struct is clean and may
> be checkpointed.  However, as soon as it has had its files filled
> from its parent's, we check it for real in __scan_files_for_cr().
> At that point, we mark it if it contained any uncheckpointable
> files.
> 
> We also check each 'struct file' when it is installed in a fd
> slot.  This way, if anyone open()s or managed to dup() an
> unsuppored file, we can catch it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

So on a practical note, Ingo's scheme appears to be paying off.  In
order for any program's files_struct to be checkpointable right now,
it must be statically compiled, else ld.so (I assume) looks up
/proc/$$/status.  So since proc is not checkpointable, the result
is irreversibly non-checkpointable.

So...  does it make sense to mark proc as checkpointable?  Do we
reasonably assume that the same procfile will be available at
restart?

-serge

  parent reply	other threads:[~2009-03-02 13:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-02-27 20:34 [RFC][PATCH 1/8] kill '_data' in cr_hdr_fd_data name Dave Hansen
2009-02-27 20:34 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/8] breakout fdinfo sprintf() into its own function Dave Hansen
2009-02-27 20:56   ` Vegard Nossum
2009-02-27 21:23     ` Dave Hansen
2009-02-27 20:34 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/8] create fs flags to mark c/r supported fs's Dave Hansen
2009-02-27 21:16   ` Alexey Dobriyan
2009-02-27 21:20     ` Dave Hansen
2009-02-27 20:34 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/8] file c/r: expose functions to query fs support Dave Hansen
2009-02-27 21:14   ` Sukadev Bhattiprolu
2009-02-27 21:24     ` Dave Hansen
2009-02-27 21:32       ` Dave Hansen
2009-02-28  1:33   ` Sukadev Bhattiprolu
2009-02-27 20:34 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/8] add f_op for checkpointability Dave Hansen
2009-02-28  2:14   ` Sukadev Bhattiprolu
2009-02-28  2:51     ` Dave Hansen
2009-02-28 20:53   ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-02-28 21:37     ` Dave Hansen
2009-03-01 15:19       ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-03-02 17:05     ` Dave Hansen
2009-03-03 13:15       ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-03-20 21:13         ` Dave Hansen
2009-03-20 21:30           ` Oren Laadan
2009-02-27 20:34 ` [RFC][PATCH 6/8] mark /dev/null and zero as checkpointable Dave Hansen
2009-02-27 20:34 ` [RFC][PATCH 7/8] add c/r info to fdinfo Dave Hansen
2009-02-27 20:34 ` [RFC][PATCH 8/8] check files for checkpointability Dave Hansen
2009-02-28  2:57   ` Sukadev Bhattiprolu
2009-03-01 17:00     ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-03-04 23:41     ` Dave Hansen
2009-03-01 19:43   ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-03-02 13:37   ` Serge E. Hallyn [this message]
2009-03-02 15:56     ` Dave Hansen
2009-03-02 15:59     ` Nathan Lynch
2009-03-02 16:27       ` Dave Hansen
2009-03-02 17:22         ` Nathan Lynch
2009-03-02 17:30           ` Dave Hansen
2009-03-02 17:44             ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-03-02 17:58               ` Dave Hansen
2009-03-02 18:13               ` Dave Hansen
2009-03-02 18:35                 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-03-05  8:20                 ` Cedric Le Goater
2009-03-02 16:28       ` Serge E. Hallyn

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20090302133754.GA8033@us.ibm.com \
    --to=serue@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
    --cc=containers@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=orenl@cs.columbia.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).