Re: [Devel] Re: [RFC v2][PATCH 4/9] Memory management - dump state

[Cedric Le Goater <clg@fr.ibm.com>]

Andrey Mirkin wrote:
> On Sunday 31 August 2008 21:34 Cedric Le Goater wrote:
>> Oren Laadan wrote:
>>> Dave, Serge:
>>>
>>> I'm currently away so I must keep this short. I think we have so far
>>> more discussion than an actual problem. I'm happy to coordinate with
>>> every interested party to eventually see this work go into main stream.
>> thanks. We do need a moderator and federator.
>>
>>> My only concerns are twofold: first, to get more feedback I believe we
>>> need to get the code a bit more usable; including FDs is an excellent
>>> way to actually do that. That will add significant value to the patch.
>> hmm, yes and no.
>>
>> fd's are a must have but I would be more interested to see an external
>> checkpoint/restart and signal support first. why ? because it would be
>> already usable for most computational programs in HPC, like this stupid
>> one :
>>
>> 	https://www.ccs.uky.edu/~bmadhu/pi/pi1.c
>>
>> signals are required because it's how 'load' and/or 'system' managers
>> interact with the jobs they spawn. external checkpoint/restart for the
>> same reason.
> 
> I'm sorry for being out of discussion for so long time.
> I've just sent a patchset with external checkpoint/restart as it is 
> implemented in OpenVZ.
> External checkpoint/restart also is very usefull if we will have container's 
> infrastructure in mainstream.
> It won't be very hard to add support for signals in my patchset. I'll wait for 
> some time for comments and will add support for signals in next version.

OK.

Then, we should be able to have a simple C/R framework (user and kernel) if we
integrate your patchset or Oren's with Daniel's user tools :

	http://lxc.cvs.sourceforge.net/lxc/

I was just starting to work on Oren's patchset when you sent yours :) 

Thanks,

C.