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

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.