Message-ID: <48FC8C51.2050108@fr.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:49:05 +0200
From: Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@fr.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Cedric Le Goater <clg@fr.ibm.com>
CC: Louis.Rilling@kerlabs.com, Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
       containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, Andrey Mirkin <major@openvz.org>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] OpenVZ kernel based checkpointing/restart
References: <1220439476-16465-1-git-send-email-major@openvz.org> <1224286383.1848.65.camel@nimitz> <20081020111002.GQ15171@hawkmoon.kerlabs.com> <48FC86B2.8000606@fr.ibm.com> <48FC8C30.6040409@fr.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <48FC8C30.6040409@fr.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1076
Lines: 24

Cedric Le Goater wrote:
>>> I'm afraid that we are forgetting to take the best from both
>>> approaches...
>> I agree with Louis.
>>
>> I played with Oren's patchset and tryed to port it on x86_64. I was able
>> to sys_checkpoint/sys_restart but if you remove the restoring of the
>> general registers, the restart still works. I am not an expert on asm,
>> but my hypothesis is when we call sys_checkpoint the registers are saved
>> on the stack by the syscall and when we restore the memory of the
>> process, we restore the stack and the stacked registers are restored
>> when exiting the sys_restart. That make me feel there is an important
>> gap between external checkpoint and internal checkpoint.
>>
>> Dmitry's patchset is nice too, but IMO, it goes too far from what we
> 
> I think you are talking about Andrey.

Yes :)
--
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/