From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nathan Lynch Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] cr: define CHECKPOINT_SUBTREE flag and sysctl Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:37:56 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20090424210608.GA16973@us.ibm.com> <20090425024515.GA4534@hallyn.com> <20090427180717.GA28476@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090427180717.GA28476-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> (Serge E. Hallyn's message of "Mon\, 27 Apr 2009 13\:07\:17 -0500") 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 , Alexey Dobriyan List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org "Serge E. Hallyn" writes: > Quoting Nathan Lynch (ntl-e+AXbWqSrlAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org): >> "Serge E. Hallyn" writes: >> > Now it's possible that at the *start* of the checkpoint there was >> > another task, not being checkpointed and not frozen, in the utsns, >> > and it exited before the leaks check took place. >> >> [Please excuse the obtuse queries below] >> >> In which case the check would fail, yes? Can this scenario actually >> occur? I'm of the understanding that a container must be frozen before >> proceeding with checkpoint. If that's correct, how could a task in the >> container exit in the meantime? > > Heh, because there is no such thing as a 'container'. There is a set of > tasks in the same freezer control group, and it's possible that there is > a task not in that cgroup which is in the same utsname as the rest of > the tasks in that freezer cgroup. Sigh, I had somehow forgotten these basic facts temporarily. Sorry for the noise; thanks for your patient explanations.