Quoting Dave Hansen (dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > On Sat, 2008-08-09 at 00:13 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > I have to wonder if this is just a symptom of us trying to do this the > > > wrong way. We're trying to talk the kernel into writing internal gunk > > > into a FD. You're right, it is like a splice where one end of the pipe > > > is in the kernel. > > > > > > Any thoughts on a better way to do this? > > > > Maybe you can invert the logic and let the new syscalls create a file > > descriptor, and then have user space read or splice the checkpoint > > data from it, and restore it by writing to the file descriptor. > > It's probably easy to do using anon_inode_getfd() and would solve this > > problem, but at the same time make checkpointing the current thread > > hard if not impossible. > > Yeah, it does seem kinda backwards. But, instead of even having to > worry about the anon_inode stuff, why don't we just put it in a fs like > everything else? checkpointfs! One reason is that I suspect that stops us from being able to send that data straight to a pipe to compress and/or send on the network, without hitting local disk. Though if the checkpointfs was ram-based maybe not? As Oren has pointed out before, passing in an fd means we can pass a socket into the syscall. Using the anon_inodes would also prevent that, but if it makes for a cleaner overall solution then I'm not against considering either one of course. > I'm also really not convinced that putting the entire checkpoint in one > glob is really the solution, either. I mean, is system call overhead > really a problem here? > > -- Dave > > _______________________________________________ > Containers mailing list > Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers