Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758376Ab1EZSvM (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 May 2011 14:51:12 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:56541 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757630Ab1EZSvK (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 May 2011 14:51:10 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 20:50:45 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: Avi Kivity , James Morris , Linus Torvalds , Kees Cook , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Will Drewry , Steven Rostedt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gnatapov@redhat.com, Chris Wright , Pekka Enberg Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] v2 seccomp_filters: Enable ftrace-based system call filtering Message-ID: <20110526185045.GA3476@elte.hu> References: <20110526082451.GB26775@elte.hu> <4DDE1419.3000708@redhat.com> <20110526093040.GB19536@elte.hu> <4DDE31D6.4070209@redhat.com> <20110526113842.GA27618@elte.hu> <4DDE96B7.8030006@redhat.com> <20110526181554.GB3572@elte.hu> <4DDE99F6.4030804@redhat.com> <20110526183635.GA2490@elte.hu> <20614.1306435422@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20614.1306435422@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.3.1 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1113 Lines: 30 * Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Thu, 26 May 2011 20:36:35 +0200, Ingo Molnar said: > > > I suspect we are really offtopic here, but an initial rsync, then > > stopping the guest, final rsync + restart the guest at the target > > would work with minimal interruption. > > Actually, after you kick off the migrate, you really want to be > tracking in real time what pages get dirtied while you're doing the > initial copy, so that the second rsync doesn't have to walk through > the file finding the differences. But that requires some extra > instrumentation. Yeah, and that's how socket based live migration works - it's completely seemless. But note that the rsync re-scan should not be an issue: both the source and the target system will obviously have a *lot* more RAM than the guest RAM image size. Thanks, Ingo -- 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/