Message-ID: <4CE58423.1030804@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:53:07 -0500
From: Oren Laadan <orenl@cs.columbia.edu>
Organization: Columbia University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101027 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
CC: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>, 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> <4CE3F8D1.10003@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <4CE3F8D1.10003@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2383
Lines: 54


On 11/17/2010 10:46 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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.

While it's your opinion that userland alternatives "already work",
in reality they are unsuitable for several real use-cases. The
userland approach has serious restrictions - which I will cover
in a follow-up post to my discussion with Gene soon.

Note that one important point of agreement was that DMTCP's ability
to provide "glue" to restart applications without their original
context is _orthogonal_ to how the core c/r is done. IOW - there
exciting goodies from DMTCP are useful with either form of c/r.

You also argue that "virtualization" (VMs?) covers everything else,
implying that lightweight virtualization is useless. In reality it
is an important technology, already in the kernel (surely you don't
suggest to pull it out ?!) and for a reason. That is already a very
good reason to provide, e.g. containers c/r and live-migration to
keep it competitive and useful.

Thanks,

Oren.
--
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/