Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] Track in-kernel when we expectcheckpoint/restart to work

[Ingo Molnar]

* Oren Laadan <orenl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> >>> By the way, why don't you introduce the reverse operation ?
> >> I think implementing the reverse operation will be a nightmare, IMHO 
> >> it is safe to say we deny checkpointing for the process life-cycle 
> >> either if the created resource was destroyed before we initiate the 
> >> checkpoint.
> > 
> > it's also a not too interesting case. The end goal is to just be able to 
> > checkpoint everything that matters - in the long run there simply wont 
> > be many places that are marked 'cannot checkpoint'.
> > 
> > So the ability to deny a checkpoint is a transitional feature - a 
> > flexible CR todo list in essence - but also needed for 
> > applications/users that want to rely on CR being a dependable facility.
> > 
> > It would be bad for most of the practical usecases of checkpointing to 
> > allow the checkpointing of an app, just to see it break on restore due 
> > to lost context.
> 
> Actually it need not wait for restore to fail - it can fail during the 
> checkpoint, as soon as the unsupported feature is encountered.

correct, that is the idea.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/