From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/5] check files for checkpointability
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:10:37 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090224011037.GB4797@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1235435430.26788.212.camel@nimitz>
Quoting Dave Hansen (dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com):
> On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 17:49 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > So what is the point of tagging the files_struct counter and
> > making it a one-way trip? Why not just check every file at
> > checkpoint time?
>
> We need both.
>
> This allows us to tell where and when we went wrong. Take a process
> that's been running for a month. After 5 days it did something random
> to keep it from being checkpointed. You're going to have forgotten all
> about it 25 days later. This gives us an opportunity to spit into dmesg
> or just plain log it. It also gives the app some ability to reflect and
> see what its uncheckpointable attributes are.
Hmm. In that case, rather than refuse checkpoint, I prefer that we make
this a footnote in the /proc/$$/checkpointable output.
-serge
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-24 1:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-19 18:20 [RFC][PATCH 1/5] create fs flag to mark c/r supported fs's Dave Hansen
2009-02-19 18:20 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/5] file c/r: expose functions to query fs support Dave Hansen
2009-02-19 18:20 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/5] check files for checkpointability Dave Hansen
2009-02-23 23:49 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-02-24 0:30 ` Dave Hansen
2009-02-24 1:10 ` Serge E. Hallyn [this message]
2009-02-24 1:20 ` Dave Hansen
2009-02-24 19:43 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2009-02-24 19:47 ` Dave Hansen
2009-02-19 18:20 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/5] breakout fdinfo sprintf() into its own function Dave Hansen
2009-02-19 18:20 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/5] add c/r info to fdinfo Dave Hansen
2009-02-19 18:23 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/5] create fs flag to mark c/r supported fs's Dave Hansen
2009-02-19 19:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-02-19 19:24 ` Dave Hansen
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=20090224011037.GB4797@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=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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
Powered by JetHome