Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753946AbYJOPQR (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:16:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751510AbYJOPQG (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:16:06 -0400 Received: from mtagate2.de.ibm.com ([195.212.17.162]:56599 "EHLO mtagate2.de.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751434AbYJOPQF (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:16:05 -0400 Message-ID: <48F6092D.6050400@fr.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:15:57 +0200 From: Cedric Le Goater User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080723) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hansen CC: Ingo Molnar , jeremy@goop.org, arnd@arndb.de, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Alexander Viro , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Andrey Mirkin Subject: Re: [RFC v6][PATCH 0/9] Kernel based checkpoint/restart References: <1223461197-11513-1-git-send-email-orenl@cs.columbia.edu> <20081009124658.GE2952@elte.hu> <1223557122.11830.14.camel@nimitz> <20081009131701.GA21112@elte.hu> <1223559246.11830.23.camel@nimitz> <20081009134415.GA12135@elte.hu> <1223571036.11830.32.camel@nimitz> <20081010153951.GD28977@elte.hu> <48F30315.1070909@fr.ibm.com> <1223916223.29877.14.camel@nimitz> In-Reply-To: <1223916223.29877.14.camel@nimitz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 975 Lines: 28 Dave Hansen wrote: > On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 10:13 +0200, Cedric Le Goater wrote: >> hmm, that's rather complex, because we have to take into account the >> kernel stack, no ? This is what Andrey was trying to solve in his patchset >> back in September : >> >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/3/96 >> >> the restart phase simulates a clone and switch_to to (not) restore the kernel >> stack. right ? > > Do we ever have to worry about the kernel stack if we simply say that > tasks have to be *in* userspace when we checkpoint them. at a syscall boundary for example. that would make our life easier definitely. C. > If a task is > in an uninterruptable wait state, I'm not sure it's safe to checkpoint > it anyway. -- 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/