From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752352Ab1JSSwV (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:52:21 -0400
Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:65346 "EHLO
	mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751813Ab1JSSwT (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:52:19 -0400
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:52:10 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrey Vagin <avagin@parallels.com>,
        James Bottomley <jbottomley@parallels.com>,
        Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@fr.ibm.com>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 5/5] elf: Add support for loading ET_CKPT files
Message-ID: <20111019185210.GZ14464@moon>
References: <20111014110416.552685686@openvz.org>
 <20111014110511.670174429@openvz.org>
 <20111014171033.GC4294@google.com>
 <20111014173304.GD4294@google.com>
 <4E9E9255.7090601@parallels.com>
 <20111019182228.GJ25124@google.com>
 <20111019184926.GY14464@moon>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20111019184926.GY14464@moon>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:49:26PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
..
> 
> Hi Tejun,
> 
> apart from controversy on elf'ish restore, I would like to know if there
> a way to poke alien process memory with something faster than sizeof(long)
> at once as ptrace proposes. At moment on my test tasks it's not that long
> but the problem is there are servers with GBs of memory and snapshotting
> memory data becomes a bottleneck. The same applies to restore procedure,
> especially on big-data-chunks. Hm? Am I missing something obvious?
> 

Drop it, I had something different in mind, sorry for noise.

	Cyrill