From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e1.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m9RGgaPB021507 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:42:36 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id m9RGgZZG130654 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:42:36 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m9RGgZb5027556 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:42:35 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC v7][PATCH 2/9] General infrastructure for checkpoint restart From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: <49059FED.4030202@cs.columbia.edu> References: <1224481237-4892-1-git-send-email-orenl@cs.columbia.edu> <1224481237-4892-3-git-send-email-orenl@cs.columbia.edu> <20081021124130.a002e838.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20081021202410.GA10423@us.ibm.com> <48FE82DF.6030005@cs.columbia.edu> <20081022152804.GA23821@us.ibm.com> <48FF4EB2.5060206@cs.columbia.edu> <87tzayh27r.wl%peter@chubb.wattle.id.au> <49059FED.4030202@cs.columbia.edu> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:42:32 -0700 Message-Id: <1225125752.12673.79.camel@nimitz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Oren Laadan Cc: Peter Chubb , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, hpa@zytor.com, Andrew Morton , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de List-ID: On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 07:03 -0400, Oren Laadan wrote: > > In our implementation, we simply refused to checkpoint setid > programs. > > True. And this works very well for HPC applications. > > However, it doesn't work so well for server applications, for > instance. > > Also, you could use file system snapshotting to ensure that the file > system view does not change, and still face the same issue. > > So I'm perfectly ok with deferring this discussion to a later time :) Oren, is this a good place to stick a process_deny_checkpoint()? Both so we refuse to checkpoint, and document this as something that has to be addressed later? -- Dave -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org