OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [RFC PATCH 0/4] Container Freezer: Reuse Suspend Freezer
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Container Freezer: Reuse Suspend Freezer [message #29087 is a reply to message #29058] Fri, 04 April 2008 14:11 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
serue is currently offline  serue
Messages: 750
Registered: February 2006
Senior Member
Quoting Paul Menage (menage@google.com):
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:03 PM,  <matthltc@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> >    * "freezer.kill"
> >
> >      writing <n> will send signal number <n> to all tasks
> >
> 
> My first thought (not having looked at the code yet) is that sending a
> signal doesn't really have anything to do with freezing, so it
> shouldn't be in the same subsystem. Maybe a separate subsystem called
> "signal"?
> 
> And more than that, it's not something that requires any particular
> per-process state, so there's no reason that the subsystem that
> provides the "kill" functionality shouldn't be able to be mounted in
> multiple hierarchies.
> 
> How about if I added support for stateless subsystems, that could
> potentially be mounted in multiple hierarchies at once? They wouldn't
> need an entry in the css set, since they have no state.
> 
> >  * Usage :
> >
> >    # mkdir /containers/freezer
> >    # mount -t container -ofreezer freezer  /containers/freezer
> >    # mkdir /containers/freezer/0
> >    # echo $some_pid > /containers/freezer/0/tasks
> >
> >  to get status of the freezer subsystem :
> >
> >    # cat /containers/freezer/0/freezer.freeze
> >    RUNNING
> >
> >  to freeze all tasks in the container :
> >
> >    # echo 1 > /containers/freezer/0/freezer.freeze
> >    # cat /containers/freezer/0/freezer.freeze
> >    FREEZING
> >    # cat /containers/freezer/0/freezer.freeze
> >    FROZEN
> 
> Could we separate this out into two files? One called "freeze" that's
> a 0/1 for whether we're intending to freeze the subsystem, and one
> called "frozen" that indicates whether it is frozen? And maybe a
> "state" file to report the RUNNING/FREEZING/FROZEN distinction in a
> human-readable way?

One thing Oren had mentioned for checkpoint/restart was having more
states - i.e. restoring, checkpointing...  So then (assuming we used
this subsys for that) we'd have more than the two files.  Which is
probably fine, just wanted to point that out.

-serge
_______________________________________________
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
Previous Topic: [PATCH 0/3] clone64() and unshare64() system calls
Next Topic: nets: status of sysfs with netns
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Wed Oct 16 15:04:11 GMT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.05069 seconds