"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Quoting Nathan Lynch (ntl@xxxxxxxxx): >> "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > Now it's possible that at the *start* of the checkpoint there was >> > another task, not being checkpointed and not frozen, in the utsns, >> > and it exited before the leaks check took place. >> >> [Please excuse the obtuse queries below] >> >> In which case the check would fail, yes? Can this scenario actually >> occur? I'm of the understanding that a container must be frozen before >> proceeding with checkpoint. If that's correct, how could a task in the >> container exit in the meantime? > > Heh, because there is no such thing as a 'container'. There is a set of > tasks in the same freezer control group, and it's possible that there is > a task not in that cgroup which is in the same utsname as the rest of > the tasks in that freezer cgroup. Sigh, I had somehow forgotten these basic facts temporarily. Sorry for the noise; thanks for your patient explanations. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
