Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754438AbZDOAHU (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:07:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752428AbZDOAHG (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:07:06 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:43368 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751949AbZDOAHF (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:07:05 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to: cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record; b=UtF5kgkQ5c/XW4/hmuU1iDuFRi8ZfIlUMcO/m13qab6HqZQ2RSOtG/hLsTBGMLl6N K3LW4bv1NI7SJLXukvAkA== MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1239727023.32604.69.camel@nimitz> References: <20090410023539.GK27788@x200.localdomain> <20090413214701.GA24509@us.ibm.com> <49E424A3.60606@cs.columbia.edu> <20090414152951.GA7703@us.ibm.com> <1239727023.32604.69.camel@nimitz> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:06:57 -0700 Message-ID: <6599ad830904141706j46d59a00r9f497dd34ec29d9@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: "partial" container checkpoint From: Paul Menage To: Dave Hansen Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , Oren Laadan , xemul@parallels.com, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Alexey Dobriyan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-System-Of-Record: true Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1050 Lines: 23 On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Dave Hansen wrote: > On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 10:29 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: >> I think the perceived need for it comes, as above, from the pure >> checkpoint-a-whole-container-only view. So long as you will >> checkpoint/restore a whole container, then you'll end up doing >> something requiring privilege anyway. But that is not all of >> the use cases. > > Yeah, there are certainly a lot of shades of gray here. I've been > talking to some HPC guys in the last couple of days. They certainly > have a need for checkpoint/restart, but much less of a need for doing > entire containers. We'd certainly like the ability to migrate jobs that might be in their own pid namespace, but not in their own network/IPC/user/etc namespaces. Paul -- 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/