Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757389AbZCBRXR (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:23:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752559AbZCBRXD (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:23:03 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:32832 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751514AbZCBRXB (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:23:01 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:22:47 -0600 From: Nathan Lynch To: Dave Hansen Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , containers , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , hch@infradead.org, Ingo Molnar , Alexey Dobriyan Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 8/8] check files for checkpointability Message-ID: <20090302112247.76bb3662@thinkcentre.lan> In-Reply-To: <1236011251.26788.450.camel@nimitz> References: <20090227203425.F3B51176@kernel> <20090227203435.98735E54@kernel> <20090302133754.GA8033@us.ibm.com> <20090302095917.6cfeda55@thinkcentre.lan> <1236011251.26788.450.camel@nimitz> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.14.7; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C5F8D89C-074E-11DE-8724-CFA5EBB1AA3C-04752483!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1479 Lines: 35 On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 08:27:31 -0800 Dave Hansen wrote: > On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 09:59 -0600, Nathan Lynch wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 07:37:54 -0600 > > "Serge E. Hallyn" wrote: > > > So on a practical note, Ingo's scheme appears to be paying off. > > > In order for any program's files_struct to be checkpointable > > > right now, it must be statically compiled, else ld.so (I assume) > > > looks up /proc/$$/status. So since proc is not checkpointable, > > > the result is irreversibly non-checkpointable. > > > > > > So... does it make sense to mark proc as checkpointable? Do we > > > reasonably assume that the same procfile will be available at > > > restart? > > > > With respect to /proc/$x/* where $x is the pid the restarted task > > wants, is that not a chicken-and-egg problem? > > Do you mean that we have to go look into /proc to figure out which > task we want before we can checkpoint it? That makes the process > *doing* the checkpoint uncheckpointable, but no the process being > examined. No.. I mean what if a process 1234 does f = fopen("/proc/1234/stat", "r"); and is then checkpointed. Can that path be resolved during restart, before pid 1234 is alive? -- 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/