Re: [RFC v6][PATCH 0/9] Kernel based checkpoint/restart

[Cedric Le Goater <clg@fr.ibm.com>]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:44 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> there might be races as well, especially with proxy state - and 
>>> current->flags updates are not serialized.
>>>
>>> So maybe it should be a completely separate flag after all? Stick it 
>>> into the end of task_struct perhaps.
>> What do you mean by proxy state?  nsproxy?
> 
> it's a concept: one task installing some state into another task (which 
> state must be restored after a checkpoint event), while that other task 
> is running. Such as a pi-futex state for example.
> 
> So a task can acquire state not just by its own doing, but via some 
> other task too.

thinking aloud,

hmm, that's rather complex, because we have to take into account the 
kernel stack, no ? This is what Andrey was trying to solve in his patchset 
back in September :

	http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/3/96

the restart phase simulates a clone and switch_to to (not) restore the kernel 
stack. right ? 

the self checkpoint and self restore syscalls, like Oren is proposing, are 
simpler but they require the process cooperation to be triggered. we could
image doing that in a special signal handler which would allow us to jump
in the right task context. 

I don't have any preference but looking at the code of the different patchsets
there are some tricky areas and I'm wondering which path is easier, safer, 
and portable. 

C.

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>