Quoting Dave Hansen (dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx):On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 18:58 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:In the worst case today we can restore a checkpoint by replaying all ofYes, tedious and slow, *and* minimally invasive in the kernel. Once we
the user space actions that took us to get there. That is a tedious
and slow approach.
have a tedious and slow process, we'll have some really good points when
we try to push the next set of patches to make it less slow and tedious.
We'll be able to describe an _actual_ set of problems to our fellow
So, the checkpoint-as-a-corefile idea sounds good to me, but it
definitely leaves a lot of questions about exactly how we'll need to do
Talking with Dave over irc, I kind of liked the idea of creating a new
fs/binfmt_cr.c that executes a checkpoint-as-a-coredump file.
One thing I do not like about the checkpoint-as-coredump is that it begs
us to dump all memory out into the file. Our plan/hope was to save
ourselves from writing out most memory by:
1. associating a separate swapfile with each container
2. doing a swapfile snapshot at each checkpoint
3. dumping the pte entries (/proc/self/)
If we do checkpoint-as-a-coredump, then we need userspace to coordinate
a kernel-generated coredump with a user-generated (?) swapfile snapshot.
But I guess we figure that out later.