From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cedric Le Goater Subject: Re: How much of a mess does OpenVZ make? ;) Was: What can OpenVZ do? Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:36:37 +0100 Message-ID: <49A7B425.4010606@fr.ibm.com> References: <20090211141434.dfa1d079.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1234462282.30155.171.camel@nimitz> <1234467035.3243.538.camel@calx> <20090212114207.e1c2de82.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1234475483.30155.194.camel@nimitz> <20090212141014.2cd3d54d.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1234479845.30155.220.camel@nimitz> <20090226162755.GB1456@x200.localdomain> <20090226173302.GB29439@elte.hu> <1235673016.5877.62.camel@bahia> <20090226221709.GA2924@x200.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090226221709.GA2924@x200.localdomain> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Alexey Dobriyan Cc: Greg Kurz , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, mpm@selenic.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dave Hansen , linux-mm@kvack.org, tglx@linutronix.de, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, hpa@zytor.com, Ingo Molnar , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Andrew Morton , xemul@openvz.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 07:30:16PM +0100, Greg Kurz wrote: >> On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 18:33 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> I think the main question is: will we ever find ourselves in the >>> future saying that "C/R sucks, nobody but a small minority uses >>> it, wish we had never merged it"? I think the likelyhood of that >>> is very low. I think the current OpenVZ stuff already looks very >> We've been maintaining for some years now a C/R middleware with only a >> few hooks in the kernel. Our strategy is to leverage existing kernel >> paths as they do most of the work right. >> >> Most of the checkpoint is performed from userspace, using regular >> syscalls in a signal handler or /proc parsing. Restart is a bit trickier >> and needs some kernel support to bypass syscall checks and enforce a >> specific id for a resource. At the end, we support C/R and live >> migration of networking apps (websphere application server for example). >> >> >From our experience, we can tell: >> >> Pros: mostly not-so-tricky userland code, independent from kernel >> internals >> Cons: sub-optimal for some resources > > How do you restore struct task_struct::did_exec ? greg didn't say there was _no_ kernel support. without discussing the pros and cons of such and such implemention, full C/R from kernel means more maintenance work from kernel maintainers, so it seems a good idea to leverage existing API when they exist. less work. duplicating the get/set of the cpu state which is already done in the signal handling is one example of extra work. now, there's a definitely a need for kernel support for some resources. the question now is finding the right path, this is still work in progress IMHO. C. -- 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