Re: [PATCH 0/3] posix timers: Extend kernel API to report more infoabout timers
From: Matthew Helsley
Date: Wed Feb 20 2013 - 20:21:36 EST
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm working on the checkpoint-restore project (http://criu.org), briefly
> it's aim is to collect information about process' state and saving it so
> that later it is possible to recreate the processes in the very same state
> as they were, using the collected information.
> One part of the task's state is the posix timers that this task has created.
> Currently kernel doesn't provide any API for getting information about
> what timers are currently created by process and in which state they are.
> I'd like to extend the posix timers API to provide more information about
> Another problem with timers is the timer ID. Currently IDs are generated
> from global IDR and this makes it impossible to restore a timer from
> the saved state in general, as the required ID may be already busy at the
> time of restore.
> That said, I propose to
> 1. Change the way timer IDs are generated. This was done some time ago, so
> I'm just re-sending this patch;
Seems fine in principle. Aside: I noticed there were some
important-looking patches to the idr usage in timer id allocation
> 2. Add a system call that will list timer IDs created by the calling process;
If timers were listed in /proc like fds then you wouldn't need this
syscall. If we keep adding new syscalls like this CRIU will be
needlessly x86-specific when it could have been written more portably.
> 3. Add a system call that will allow to get the sigevent information about
> particular timer in the sigaction-like manner.
You mentioned "extending the POSIX timer API". Isn't that something
best left to standards bodies lest your changes conflict with theirs?
Again, if this were a /proc interface you wouldn't have that issue
(you'll have others ;)).
> This is actually an RFC to start discussion about how the described problems
> can be addressed. Thus, if the approach with new system calls is not acceptable,
> I'm OK to implement this in any other form.
My preference is for "other form" for the reasons above.
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/