Andrey Mirkin wrote: > On Monday 20 October 2008 19:55 Dave Hansen wrote: >> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 16:14 +0400, Andrey Mirkin wrote: >>> Right now my patchset (v2) provides an ability to checkpoint and restart >>> a group of processes. The process of checkpointing and restart can be >>> initiated from external process (not from the process which should be >>> checkpointed). >> Absolutely. Oren's code does it this way to make for a smaller patch at >> first. The syscall takes a pid argument so it is surely expected to be >> expanded upon later. >> >>> Also I think that all the restart job (including process forking) should >>> be done in kernel, as in this case we will not depend on user space and >>> will be more secure. This is also implemented in my patchset. >> Do you think that this is an approach that Oren's patches are married >> to, or is this a "feature" we can add on later? > > Well, AFAICS from Oren's patch set his approach is oriented on process > creation in user space. I think we should choose right now what approach will > be used for process creation. > We have two options here: fork processes in kernel or fork them in user space. > If process will be forked in user space, then there will be a gap when process > will be in user space and can be killed with received signal before entering > kernel. Also we will need a functionolity to create processes with predefined > PID. I think it is not very good to provide such ability to user space. That Rethinking this -- if the user wishes she can construct a suitable checkpoint image that would do exactly that. It takes more effort than using a system call, but the result is similar. What I had in mind for that special clone-with-pid is to restrict when it can be used (e.g. when the container is in a "restarting" state or something like that. [...] Oren. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers