Re: [RFC][PATCH 8/8] check files for checkpointability

[Dave Hansen]

On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 07:37 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Dave Hansen (dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):
> > 
> > Introduce a files_struct counter to indicate whether a particular
> > file_struct has ever contained a file which can not be
> > checkpointed.  This flag is a one-way trip; once it is set, it may
> > not be unset.
> > 
> > We assume at allocation that a new files_struct is clean and may
> > be checkpointed.  However, as soon as it has had its files filled
> > from its parent's, we check it for real in __scan_files_for_cr().
> > At that point, we mark it if it contained any uncheckpointable
> > files.
> > 
> > We also check each 'struct file' when it is installed in a fd
> > slot.  This way, if anyone open()s or managed to dup() an
> > unsuppored file, we can catch it.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> So on a practical note, Ingo's scheme appears to be paying off.  In
> order for any program's files_struct to be checkpointable right now,
> it must be statically compiled, else ld.so (I assume) looks up
> /proc/$$/status.  So since proc is not checkpointable, the result
> is irreversibly non-checkpointable.
> 
> So...  does it make sense to mark proc as checkpointable?  Do we
> reasonably assume that the same procfile will be available at
> restart?

Can I kick and scream for a minute?  :)

dave@nimitz:~/lse/linux/2.5/linux-2.6.git$ grep -r 'struct file_operations.*{' fs/ | grep /proc/ | wc -l
51

I'll need to go actually look at (and mark) each of those.  But, the
upside is that I'll have to go look at each of those.

-- Dave

--
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/