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 of > > the user space actions that took us to get there. That is a tedious > > and slow approach. > > Yes, tedious and slow, *and* minimally invasive in the kernel. Once we > 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 > kernel hackers. > > 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 > the restore. 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. -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
