All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* thoughts on checkpointing /proc/mounts
@ 2009-03-02 18:48 Dave Hansen
  2009-03-02 19:43 ` Serge E. Hallyn
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Dave Hansen @ 2009-03-02 18:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: containers; +Cc: Ingo Molnar, Nathan Lynch, Alexey Dobriyan, Christoph Hellwig

Christoph's suggestion that we go add f_ops individually is a really
good way to get people thinking about individual cases that we have to
deal with.

Can we checkpoint an *open* /proc/mounts?  I don't think we want to.  It
could get really nasty really fast.  But, what if the f_pos is 0?  That
makes it a lot easier.

If the "may checkpoint" flag is per-container (as Alexey has said) and
one-way (as Ingo has said), does a single 'cat /proc/mounts' 5 days ago
keep a container from being checkpointed today?

I just don't think the container-wide flag works if it is one way.

I think making it per-process or per-resource (so it can be more easily
tracked at fork()/clone()/exec()) is the only way to go.  It makes it so
simple since only the 'cat /proc/mounts' process becomes
uncheckpointable.  Once it exits, we are OK and can checkpoint again.
That all seems right to me. 

-- Dave

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

* Re: thoughts on checkpointing /proc/mounts
  2009-03-02 18:48 thoughts on checkpointing /proc/mounts Dave Hansen
@ 2009-03-02 19:43 ` Serge E. Hallyn
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Serge E. Hallyn @ 2009-03-02 19:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dave Hansen
  Cc: containers, Ingo Molnar, Nathan Lynch, Alexey Dobriyan,
	Christoph Hellwig

Quoting Dave Hansen (dave-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org):
> Christoph's suggestion that we go add f_ops individually is a really
> good way to get people thinking about individual cases that we have to
> deal with.
> 
> Can we checkpoint an *open* /proc/mounts?  I don't think we want to.  It
> could get really nasty really fast.  But, what if the f_pos is 0?  That
> makes it a lot easier.
> 
> If the "may checkpoint" flag is per-container (as Alexey has said) and
> one-way (as Ingo has said), does a single 'cat /proc/mounts' 5 days ago
> keep a container from being checkpointed today?
> 
> I just don't think the container-wide flag works if it is one way.
> 
> I think making it per-process or per-resource (so it can be more easily
> tracked at fork()/clone()/exec()) is the only way to go.  It makes it so
> simple since only the 'cat /proc/mounts' process becomes
> uncheckpointable.  Once it exits, we are OK and can checkpoint again.
> That all seems right to me. 
> 
> -- Dave

Well one way to look at it:

the files_struct may_checkpoint is the short-term big stick to put
pressure on us to fix things that are fixable.

the per-file ->checkpoint() will (I guess) always be able to return
an error.  So for now an open /proc/mounts fd will irreversibly make
the process non-checkpointable.  But eventually the files_struct
may_checkpoint flag will go away, and we'll just let each fd decide
at checkpoint time whether it's ok to checkpoint.

-serge

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2009-03-02 19:43 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-03-02 18:48 thoughts on checkpointing /proc/mounts Dave Hansen
2009-03-02 19:43 ` Serge E. Hallyn

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.