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. Anyway, I'll fix /proc. It is pretty important. -- Dave _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers