Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] Track in-kernel when we expect checkpoint/restartto work

[Oren Laadan]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>> By the way, why don't you introduce the reverse operation ?
>> I think implementing the reverse operation will be a nightmare, IMHO 
>> it is safe to say we deny checkpointing for the process life-cycle 
>> either if the created resource was destroyed before we initiate the 
>> checkpoint.
> 
> it's also a not too interesting case. The end goal is to just be able to 
> checkpoint everything that matters - in the long run there simply wont 
> be many places that are marked 'cannot checkpoint'.
> 
> So the ability to deny a checkpoint is a transitional feature - a 
> flexible CR todo list in essence - but also needed for 
> applications/users that want to rely on CR being a dependable facility.
> 
> It would be bad for most of the practical usecases of checkpointing to 
> allow the checkpointing of an app, just to see it break on restore due 
> to lost context.

Actually it need not wait for restore to fail - it can fail during the
checkpoint, as soon as the unsupported feature is encountered.

Adding that flag of what you suggest will help make it more vocal and
obvious that a feature isn't supported, even without the user actually
trying to take a checkpoint. I  like that I idea.

Oren.

> 
> 	Ingo
> _______________________________________________
> Containers mailing list
> Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/