Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754065AbYJ0QnS (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:43:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751838AbYJ0Qm6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:42:58 -0400 Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.146]:43921 "EHLO e6.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751208AbYJ0Qm5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:42:57 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC v7][PATCH 2/9] General infrastructure for checkpoint restart From: Dave Hansen To: Oren Laadan Cc: Peter Chubb , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, hpa@zytor.com, Andrew Morton , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de In-Reply-To: <49059FED.4030202@cs.columbia.edu> References: <1224481237-4892-1-git-send-email-orenl@cs.columbia.edu> <1224481237-4892-3-git-send-email-orenl@cs.columbia.edu> <20081021124130.a002e838.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20081021202410.GA10423@us.ibm.com> <48FE82DF.6030005@cs.columbia.edu> <20081022152804.GA23821@us.ibm.com> <48FF4EB2.5060206@cs.columbia.edu> <87tzayh27r.wl%peter@chubb.wattle.id.au> <49059FED.4030202@cs.columbia.edu> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:42:32 -0700 Message-Id: <1225125752.12673.79.camel@nimitz> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 897 Lines: 25 On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 07:03 -0400, Oren Laadan wrote: > > In our implementation, we simply refused to checkpoint setid > programs. > > True. And this works very well for HPC applications. > > However, it doesn't work so well for server applications, for > instance. > > Also, you could use file system snapshotting to ensure that the file > system view does not change, and still face the same issue. > > So I'm perfectly ok with deferring this discussion to a later time :) Oren, is this a good place to stick a process_deny_checkpoint()? Both so we refuse to checkpoint, and document this as something that has to be addressed later? -- Dave -- 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/