On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 08:27:31 -0800
Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 09:59 -0600, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 07:37:54 -0600
> > "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > So on a practical note, Ingo's scheme appears to be paying off.
> > > In order for any program's files_struct to be checkpointable
> > > right now, it must be statically compiled, else ld.so (I assume)
> > > looks up /proc/$$/status. So since proc is not checkpointable,
> > > the result is irreversibly non-checkpointable.
> > >
> > > So... does it make sense to mark proc as checkpointable? Do we
> > > reasonably assume that the same procfile will be available at
> > > restart?
> >
> > With respect to /proc/$x/* where $x is the pid the restarted task
> > wants, is that not a chicken-and-egg problem?
>
> Do you mean that we have to go look into /proc to figure out which
> task we want before we can checkpoint it? That makes the process
> *doing* the checkpoint uncheckpointable, but no the process being
> examined.
No.. I mean what if a process 1234 does
f = fopen("/proc/1234/stat", "r");
and is then checkpointed. Can that path be resolved during restart,
before pid 1234 is alive?
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
