Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759943AbYJJOEr (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:04:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755825AbYJJOEj (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:04:39 -0400 Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.152]:41010 "EHLO e34.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754660AbYJJOEi (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:04:38 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:04:30 -0500 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" To: Cedric Le Goater Cc: Dave Hansen , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar , arnd@arndb.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] first callers of process_deny_checkpoint() Message-ID: <20081010140430.GA14640@us.ibm.com> References: <20081009190405.13A253CB@kernel> <20081009190406.1B257119@kernel> <48EF2BAB.1010009@fr.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48EF2BAB.1010009@fr.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1690 Lines: 42 Quoting Cedric Le Goater (clg@fr.ibm.com): > > diff -puN ipc/mqueue.c~no-checkpointing-for-sockets ipc/mqueue.c > > --- linux-2.6.git/ipc/mqueue.c~no-checkpointing-for-sockets 2008-10-09 11:56:58.000000000 -0700 > > +++ linux-2.6.git-dave/ipc/mqueue.c 2008-10-09 11:56:58.000000000 -0700 > > @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ > > */ > > > > #include > > +#include > > #include > > #include > > #include > > @@ -655,6 +656,8 @@ asmlinkage long sys_mq_open(const char _ > > char *name; > > int fd, error; > > > > + process_deny_checkpointing(current); > > + > > mqueue being a file system, i would put the checks in the inode_operations. > > Also, you can't always deny ! I would expect some allow in sys_mq_unlink(). Remember a part of Ingo's motivation is to push c/r developers to address the lacking features that users use most, earlier. So the warnings and subsequent email complaints are what we're after. Hence a single 'checkpointable or not' flag. Given the single flag, how do you know at sys_mq_unlink() whether the process also has an opensocket? Rather than make this tracking facility more complicated and intrusive, if people complain that they couldn't checkpoint bc of a warning about aio, then we implement aio c/r! We don't just try and reduce the amount of time that you can't checkpoint bc of lack of aio c/r support :) -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/