From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] checkpoint: Note checkpointability of mm_struct (v2) Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:44:46 -0800 Message-ID: <1236206687.22399.44.camel@nimitz> References: <20090302161115.GA10484@us.ibm.com> <87iqmpvtfw.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> <20090304223505.GA27248@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090304223505.GA27248-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Cc: Linux Containers , Dan Smith List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 16:35 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > I was especially curious whether using vm_stat_account to catch the > offending mmaps seemed sensible. I'm leery about it, but semi-ok since it seems like a common enough place. Can you check that it works on with hugetlbfs? Some of those paths can get kinda screwy. I don't know how you picked vm_stat_account(), but as long as it is paired closely with the allocations of the vma structs themselves you should be OK. Please do send to linux-mm when ready, though. -- Dave