Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964970AbVKOTlb (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:41:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964996AbVKOTlb (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:41:31 -0500 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]:58855 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964970AbVKOTla (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:41:30 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:41:28 -0600 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" To: Ray Bryant Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Hubertus Franke , Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 00/13] Introduce task_pid api Message-ID: <20051115194127.GB17287@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> References: <20051114212341.724084000@sergelap> <200511151321.08860.raybry@mpdtxmail.amd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200511151321.08860.raybry@mpdtxmail.amd.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1566 Lines: 41 Quoting Ray Bryant (raybry@mpdtxmail.amd.com): > On Monday 14 November 2005 15:23, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > -- > > > > I'm part of a project implementing checkpoint/restart processes. > > After a process or group of processes is checkpointed, killed, and > > restarted, the changing of pids could confuse them. There are many > > other such issues, but we wanted to start with pids. > > > > I've read through the rest of this thread, but it seems to me that the real > problems are in the basic assumptions you are making that are driving the > rest of this effort and perhaps we should be examining those assumptions > instead of your patch. Ok. > For example, from what I've read (particularly Hubertus's post that the pid > could be in a register), I'm inferring that what you want to do is to be able > to checkpoint/restart an arbitrary process at an arbitrary time and without > any special support for checkpoint/restart in that process. Yes. > Also (c. f. Dave Hansen's post on the number of Xen virtual machines > required), you appear to think that the number of processes on the system > for which checkpoint/restart should be enabled is large (more or less the > same as the number of processes on the system). Right. > Am I reading this correctly? As far as I can see, yes. -serge - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/