From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 834156B00C9 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:40:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227]) by e36.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n1I0dZmu002640 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:39:35 -0700 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id n1I0egNE209042 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:40:43 -0700 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n1I0egmQ005406 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:40:42 -0700 Subject: Re: What can OpenVZ do? From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: <20090218003217.GB25856@elte.hu> 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> <20090213105302.GC4608@elte.hu> <1234817490.30155.287.camel@nimitz> <20090217222319.GA10546@elte.hu> <1234909849.4816.9.camel@nimitz> <20090218003217.GB25856@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:40:39 -0800 Message-Id: <1234917639.4816.12.camel@nimitz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, mpm@selenic.com, tglx@linutronix.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, xemul@openvz.org, Nathan Lynch List-ID: On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 01:32 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > Uncheckpointable should be a one-way flag anyway. We want this > > > to become usable, so uncheckpointable functionality should be as > > > painful as possible, to make sure it's getting fixed ... > > > > Again, as these patches stand, we don't support checkpointing > > when non-simple files are opened. Basically, if a > > open()/lseek() pair won't get you back where you were, we > > don't deal with them. > > > > init does non-checkpointable things. If the flag is a one-way > > trip, we'll never be able to checkpoint because we'll always > > inherit init's ! checkpointable flag. > > > > To fix this, we could start working on making sure we can > > checkpoint init, but that's practically worthless. > > i mean, it should be per process (per app) one-way flag of > course. If the app does something unsupported, it gets > non-checkpointable and that's it. OK, we can definitely do that. Do you think it is OK to run through a set of checks at exec() time to check if the app currently has any unsupported things going on? If we don't directly inherit the parent's status, then we need to have *some* time when we check it. -- Dave -- 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