Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753880AbYJTQvf (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:51:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753033AbYJTQvY (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:51:24 -0400 Received: from e38.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.159]:44286 "EHLO e38.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753715AbYJTQvX (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:51:23 -0400 Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:51:17 -0500 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" To: Oren Laadan Cc: Daniel Lezcano , Louis.Rilling@kerlabs.com, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, Dave Hansen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrey Mirkin Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] OpenVZ kernel based checkpointing/restart Message-ID: <20081020165117.GA25885@us.ibm.com> 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> <48FCA97C.1040108@cs.columbia.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48FCA97C.1040108@cs.columbia.edu> 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: 1350 Lines: 33 Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl@cs.columbia.edu): > This is a misconception: my patches are not "internal checkpoint". My > patches are basically "external checkpoint" by design, which *also* > accommodates self-checkpointing (aka internal). The same holds for the > restart. The implementation is demonstrated with "self-checkpoint" to > avoid complicating things at this early stage of proof-of-concept. > > For multiple processes all that is needed is a container and a loop > on the checkpoint side, and a method to recreate processes on the > restart side. Andrew suggests to do it in kernel space, I still have > doubts. Yes I still prefer in-kernel. Can you elaborate on advantages of doing more work in userspace? > While I held out the multi-process part of the patch so far because I Yup, and i appreciate your restraint until now :) It made your patchset much easier to review. > was explicitly asked to do it, it seems like this would be a good time > to push it out and get feedback. Can you send that out as a patch(set) on top of your v7? I'd love to see (and test) it. thanks, -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/