Quoting Dan Smith (danms@xxxxxxxxxx):
> SH> +static inline void task_show_checkpointable(struct seq_file *m,
> SH> + struct task_struct *p)
> SH> +{
> SH> + if (test_bit(0, &p->mm->may_checkpoint))
> SH> + seq_printf(m, "mm is checkpointable\n");
> ^^^
> You have a hard tab in the middle of the line. Was that intentional?
>
> SH> + else
> SH> + seq_printf(m, "mm is not checkpointable\n");
> SH> +
> SH> + if (test_bit(0, &p->files->may_checkpoint))
> SH> + seq_printf(m, "files are checkpointable\n");
> SH> + else
> SH> + seq_printf(m, "files are not checkpointable\n");
> SH> +}
>
> These too.
>
> SH> +static inline void __mm_deny_checkpointing(struct mm_struct *mm,
> SH> + char *file, int line)
> SH> +{
> SH> + if (!test_and_clear_bit(0, &mm->may_checkpoint))
> SH> + return;
> SH> + printk(KERN_INFO "process performed an (mm) action that can not be "
> SH> + "checkpointed at: %s:%d\n", file, line);
> SH> +}
> SH> +#define mm_deny_checkpointing(f) \
> SH> + __mm_deny_checkpointing(f, __FILE__, __LINE__)
>
> There is no definition of mm_deny_checkpointing() outside of
> CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTART, which means that you get a build error
> because mm->may_checkpoint is only present when CR is enabled.
>
> SH> - WARN_ON(1);
> SH> + //WARN_ON(1);
>
> I assume commenting this out wasn't intended to be in this patch.
Yeah that's why I said I would clean it up before sending to
lkml :)
I was especially curious whether using vm_stat_account to catch the
offending mmaps seemed sensible.
thanks,
-serge
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
