Message-ID: <4CE3F8D1.10003@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:46:25 +0100
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
CC: Oren Laadan <orenl@cs.columbia.edu>, Kapil Arya <kapil@ccs.neu.edu>,
        Gene Cooperman <gene@ccs.neu.edu>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Matt Helsley <matthltc@us.ibm.com>,
        Linux Containers <containers@lists.osdl.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>, xemul@sw.ru
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2010-discuss] checkpoint-restart: naked patch
References: <AANLkTinOg6n3ZA+0gHzw9LouRuUmJ7DJwHtABRy5c=gM@mail.gmail.com> <4CD26948.7050009@kernel.org> <20101104164401.GC10656@sundance.ccs.neu.edu> <4CD3CE29.2010105@kernel.org> <20101106053204.GB12449@count0.beaverton.ibm.com> <20101106204008.GA31077@sundance.ccs.neu.edu> <4CD5D99A.8000402@cs.columbia.edu> <20101107184927.GF31077@sundance.ccs.neu.edu> <4CD72150.9070705@cs.columbia.edu> <4CE3C334.9080401@kernel.org> <20101117153902.GA1155@hallyn.com>
In-Reply-To: <20101117153902.GA1155@hallyn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1426
Lines: 35

Hello, Serge.

On 11/17/2010 04:39 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>> I'm sorry but in-kernel CR already looks like a major misdesign to me.
> 
> By this do you mean the very idea of having CR support in the kernel?
> Or our design of it in the kernel?

The former, I'm afraid.

> Let's go back to July 2008, at the containers mini-summit, where it
> was unanimously agreed upon that the kernel was the right place
> (Checkpoint/Resetart [CR] under
> http://wiki.openvz.org/Containers/Mini-summit_2008_notes ), and that
> we would start by supporting a single task with no resources.  Was
> that whole discussion effectively misguided, in your opinion?  Or do
> you feel that since the first steps outlined in that discussion
> we've either "gone too far" or strayed in the subsequent design?

The conclusion doesn't seem like such a good idea, well, at least to
me for what it's worth.  Conclusions at summits don't carry decisive
weight.  It'll still have to prove its worthiness for mainline all the
same and in light of already working userland alternative and the
expanded area now covered by virtualization, the arguments in this
thread don't seem too strong.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/