From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate7.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m9FFG2X1519538 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:16:02 GMT Received: from d12av03.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av03.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.213]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id m9FFG2qH3862694 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:16:02 +0200 Received: from d12av03.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av03.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m9FFG1EF006110 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:16:02 +0200 Message-ID: <48F6092D.6050400@fr.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:15:57 +0200 From: Cedric Le Goater MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC v6][PATCH 0/9] Kernel based checkpoint/restart References: <1223461197-11513-1-git-send-email-orenl@cs.columbia.edu> <20081009124658.GE2952@elte.hu> <1223557122.11830.14.camel@nimitz> <20081009131701.GA21112@elte.hu> <1223559246.11830.23.camel@nimitz> <20081009134415.GA12135@elte.hu> <1223571036.11830.32.camel@nimitz> <20081010153951.GD28977@elte.hu> <48F30315.1070909@fr.ibm.com> <1223916223.29877.14.camel@nimitz> In-Reply-To: <1223916223.29877.14.camel@nimitz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Dave Hansen Cc: Ingo Molnar , jeremy@goop.org, arnd@arndb.de, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Alexander Viro , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Andrey Mirkin List-ID: Dave Hansen wrote: > On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 10:13 +0200, Cedric Le Goater wrote: >> 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 ? > > Do we ever have to worry about the kernel stack if we simply say that > tasks have to be *in* userspace when we checkpoint them. at a syscall boundary for example. that would make our life easier definitely. C. > If a task is > in an uninterruptable wait state, I'm not sure it's safe to checkpoint > it anyway. -- 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