From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FDB16B003D for ; Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:15:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:14:34 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [RFC v13][PATCH 00/14] Kernel based checkpoint/restart Message-Id: <20090211141434.dfa1d079.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <1234285547.30155.6.camel@nimitz> References: <1233076092-8660-1-git-send-email-orenl@cs.columbia.edu> <1234285547.30155.6.camel@nimitz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Dave Hansen Cc: orenl@cs.columbia.edu, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu List-ID: On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:05:47 -0800 Dave Hansen wrote: > On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 12:07 -0500, Oren Laadan wrote: > > Checkpoint-restart (c/r): a couple of fixes in preparation for 64bit > > architectures, and a couple of fixes for bugss (comments from Serge > > Hallyn, Sudakvev Bhattiprolu and Nathan Lynch). Updated and tested > > against v2.6.28. > > > > Aiming for -mm. > > Is there anything that we're waiting on before these can go into -mm? I > think the discussion on the first few patches has died down to almost > nothing. They're pretty reviewed-out. Do they need a run in -mm? I > don't think linux-next is quite appropriate since they're not _quite_ > aimed at mainline yet. > I raised an issue a few months ago and got inconclusively waffled at. Let us revisit. I am concerned that this implementation is a bit of a toy, and that we don't know what a sufficiently complete implementation will look like. There is a risk that if we merge the toy we either: a) end up having to merge unacceptably-expensive-to-maintain code to make it a non-toy or b) decide not to merge the unacceptably-expensive-to-maintain code, leaving us with a toy or c) simply cannot work out how to implement the missing functionality. So perhaps we can proceed by getting you guys to fill out the following paperwork: - In bullet-point form, what features are present? - In bullet-point form, what features are missing, and should be added? - Is it possible to briefly sketch out the design of the to-be-added features? For extra marks: - Will any of this involve non-trivial serialisation of kernel objects? If so, that's getting into the unacceptably-expensive-to-maintain space, I suspect. - Does (or will) this feature also support process migration? If not, I'd have thought this to be a showstopper. -- 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