Quoting Dave Hansen (dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 19:10 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > This allows us to tell where and when we went wrong. Take a process > > > that's been running for a month. After 5 days it did something random > > > to keep it from being checkpointed. You're going to have forgotten all > > > about it 25 days later. This gives us an opportunity to spit into dmesg > > > or just plain log it. It also gives the app some ability to reflect and > > > see what its uncheckpointable attributes are. > > > > Hmm. In that case, rather than refuse checkpoint, I prefer that we make > > this a footnote in the /proc/$$/checkpointable output. > > Yeah, that's cool. If we were smart, we'd also get hooked into some of > the ftrace output so that we have a real chance of logging these things > and being able to go look at something about them down the line. How exactly woudl that work? Would that work as a *replacement* for filling up the logs as I was recommending? If so I'm all for it... -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
