OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [PATCH 2.6.24-rc8-mm1 00/15] IPC: code rewrite + new functionalities
Re: [PATCH 2.6.24-rc8-mm1 09/15] (RFC) IPC: new kernel API to change an ID [message #26867 is a reply to message #26775] Mon, 04 February 2008 13:41 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
dev is currently offline  dev
Messages: 1693
Registered: September 2005
Location: Moscow
Senior Member

Cedric Le Goater wrote:
> Hello Kirill !
> 
> Kirill Korotaev wrote:
>> Pierre,
>>
>> my point is that after you've added interface "set IPCID", you'll need
>> more and more for checkpointing:
>> - "create/setup conntrack" (otherwise connections get dropped),
>> - "set task start time" (needed for Oracle checkpointing BTW),
>> - "set some statistics counters (e.g. networking or taskstats)"
>> - "restore inotify"
>> and so on and so forth.
> 
> right. we know that we will have to handle a lot of these
> and more and we will need an API for it :) so how should we handle it ?
> through a dedicated syscall that would be able to checkpoint and/or
> restart a process, an ipc object, an ipc namespace, a full container ?
> will it take a fd or a big binary blob ?  
> I personally really liked Pavel idea's of filesystem. but we dropped the
> thread.

Imho having a file system interface means having all its problems.
Imagine you have some information about tasks exported with a file system interface.
Obviously to collect the information you have to hold some spinlock like tasklist_lock or similar.
Obviously, you have to drop the lock between sys_read() syscalls.
So interface gets much more complicated - you have to rescan the objects and somehow find the place where
you stopped previous read. Or you have to to force reader to read everything at once.

> that's for the user API but we will need also kernel services to expose
> (checkpoint) states and restore them. If it's too
> early to talk about the user API, we could try first to refactor
> the kernel internals to expose correctly what we need.

That's what I would start with.

> That's what Pierre's patchset is trying to do.

Not exactly. For checkpointing/restoring we actually need only one new API call for each
subsystem - create some object with given ID (and maybe parameters, if they are not dynamically changeable by user).
While Pierre's patchset adds different API call - change object ID.

Thanks,
Kirill
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: [PATCH][DOCUMENTATION] Minimal controller code for a quick start
Next Topic: [PATCH] Filesystems visibility control group
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Jul 06 01:15:42 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02135 seconds