[RFC][PATCH 2/2] CR: handle a single task with private memory maps

Oren Laadan orenl at cs.columbia.edu
Thu Jul 31 09:28:57 PDT 2008



Louis Rilling wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 11:09:54AM -0400, Oren Laadan wrote:
>>
>> Louis Rilling wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 06:20:32PM -0400, Oren Laadan wrote:
>>>> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>>>>> Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl at cs.columbia.edu):
>>>>>> +int do_checkpoint(struct cr_ctx *ctx)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +	int ret;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	/* FIX: need to test whether container is checkpointable */
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	ret = cr_write_hdr(ctx);
>>>>>> +	if (!ret)
>>>>>> +		ret = cr_write_task(ctx, current);
>>>>>> +	if (!ret)
>>>>>> +		ret = cr_write_tail(ctx);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	/* on success, return (unique) checkpoint identifier */
>>>>>> +	if (!ret)
>>>>>> +		ret = ctx->crid;
>>>>> Does this crid have a purpose?
>>>> yes, at least three; both are for the future, but important to set the
>>>> meaning of the return value of the syscall already now. The "crid" is
>>>> the CR-identifier that identifies the checkpoint. Every checkpoint is
>>>> assigned a unique number (using an atomic counter).
>>>>
>>>> 1) if a checkpoint is taken and kept in memory (instead of to a file) then
>>>> this will be the identifier with which the restart (or cleanup) would refer
>>>> to the (in memory) checkpoint image
>>>>
>>>> 2) to reduce downtime of the checkpoint, data will be aggregated on the
>>>> checkpoint context, as well as referenced to (cow-ed) pages. This data can
>>>> persist between calls to sys_checkpoint(), and the 'crid', again, will be
>>>> used to identify the (in-memory-to-be-dumped-to-storage) context.
>>>>
>>>> 3) for incremental checkpoint (where a successive checkpoint will only
>>>> save what has changed since the previous checkpoint) there will be a need
>>>> to identify the previous checkpoints (to be able to know where to take
>>>> data from during restart). Again, a 'crid' is handy.
>>>>
>>>> [in fact, for the 3rd use, it will make sense to write that number as
>>>> part of the checkpoint image header]
>>>>
>>>> Note that by doing so, a process that checkpoints itself (in its own
>>>> context), can use code that is similar to the logic of fork():
>>>>
>>>> 	...
>>>> 	crid = checkpoint(...);
>>>> 	switch (crid) {
>>>> 	case -1:
>>>> 		perror("checkpoint failed");
>>>> 		break;
>>>> 	default:
>>>> 		fprintf(stderr, "checkpoint succeeded, CRID=%d\n", ret);
>>>> 		/* proceed with execution after checkpoint */
>>>> 		...
>>>> 		break;
>>>> 	case 0:
>>>> 		fprintf(stderr, "returned after restart\n");
>>>> 		/* proceed with action required following a restart */
>>>> 		...
>>>> 		break;
>>>> 	}
>>>> 	...
>>> If I understand correctly, this crid can live for quite a long time. So many of
>>> them could be generated while some container would accumulate incremental
>>> checkpoints on, say crid 5, and possibly crid 5 could be reused for another
>>> unrelated checkpoint during that time. This brings the issue of allocating crids
>>> reliably (using something like a pidmap for instance). Moreover, if such ids are
>>> exposed to userspace, we need to remember which ones are allocated accross
>>> reboots and migrations.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid that this becomes too complex...
>> And I'm afraid I didn't explain myself well. So let me rephrase:
>>
>> CRIDs are always _local_ to a specific node. The local CRID counter is
>> bumped (atomically) with each checkpoint attempt. The main use case is
>> for when the checkpoint is kept is memory either shortly (until it is
>> written back to disk) or for a longer time (use-cases that want to keep
>> it there). It only remains valid as long as the checkpoint image is
>> still in memory and have not been committed to storage/network. Think
>> of it as a way to identify the operation instance.
>>
>> So they can live quite a long time, but only as long as the original
>> node is still alive and the checkpoint is still kept in memory. They
>> are meaningless across reboots and migrations. I don't think a wrap
>> around is a concern, but we can use 64 bit if that is the case.
>>
>> Finally, the incremental checkpoint use-case: imagine a container that
>> is checkpointed regularly every minutes. The first checkpoint will be
>> a full checkpoint, say CRID=1. The second will be incremental with
>> respect to the first, with CRID=2, and so on the third and the forth.
>> Userspace could use these CRID to name the image files (for example,
>> app.img.CRID). Assume that we decide (big "if") that the convention is
>> that the last part of the filename must be the CRID, and if we decide
>> (another big "if") to save the CRID as part of the checkpoint image --
>> the part that describe the "incremental nature" of a new checkpoint.
>> (That part would specify where to get state that wasn't really saved
>> in the new checkpoint but instead can be retrieved from older ones).
>> If that was the case, then the logic in the kernel would be fairly
>> to find (and access) the actual files that hold the data. Note, that
>> in this case - the CRID are guaranteed to be unique per series of
>> incremental checkpoints, and incremental chekcpoint is meaningless
>> across reboots (and we can require that across migration too).
> 
> Letting the kernel guess where to find the missing data of an incremental
> checkpoint seems a bit hazardous indeed. What about just appending incremental
> checkpoints to the last full checkpoint file?

It isn't quite a "guess", it's like the kernel assumes that a kernel-helper
resides in some directory - it's a convention. I agree, though, that it may
not be the best method to do it.

As for putting everything in a single file, I prefer not to do that, and it
may not even always possible I believe.

An incremental would include a section that describes how to find the missing
data from previous checkpoints, so it must have a way to identify a previous
checkpoint.

On way is like I suggested name them with this identifier, another would be,
for example, that the user provides a list of file-descriptors that match
the required identifiers. Other ways may be possible too.

In any event, I think it is now  bit early to discuss the exact format and
logic, when we don't even have a simple checkpoint working :)

Incremental checkpoint is one of a few reasons to use CRIDs, let us first
agree about CRIDs, and later, when we design incremental checkpoints, decide
on the technical details of incorporating this CRIDs.

(Just to avoid confusion, an incremental checkpoint is _not_ a pre-copy or
live-migration: in a pre-copy, we repeatedly copy the state of the container
without freezing it until the delta is small enough, then we freeze and then
we checkpoint the remaining residues. All this activity belongs to a single
checkpoint. In incremental checkpoints, we talk about multiple checkpoints
that save only the delta with respect to their preceding checkpoint).

> 
>> We probably don't want to use something like a pid to identify the
>> checkpoint (while in memory), because we may have multiple checkpoints
>> in memory at a time (of the same container).
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>>> It would be way easier if the only (kernel-level) references to a checkpoint
>>> were pointers to its context. Ideally, the only reference would live in a
>>> 'struct container' and would be easily updated at restart-time.
>> Consider the following scenario of calls from user-space (which is
>> how I envision the checkpoint optimized for minimal downtime, in the
>> future):
>>
>> 1)	while (syscall_to_do_precopy)		<- do precopy until ready to
>> 		if (too_long_already)		<- checkpoint or too long
>> 			break;
>>
>> 2)	freeze_container();
>>
>> 3)	crid = checkpoint(.., .., CR_CKPT_LAZY);	<- checkpoint container
>> 							<- don't commit to disk
>> 							<- (minimize owntime)
>>
>> 4)	unfreeze_container();			<- now can unfreeze container
>> 						<- already as soon as possible
>>
>> 5)	ckpt_writeback(crid, fd);		<- container is back running. we
>> 						<- can commit data to storage or
>> 						<- network in the background.
>>
>> #2 and #4 are done with freezer_cgroup()
>>
>> #1, #3 and #5 must be syscalls
>>
>> More specifically, syscall #5 must be able to refer to the result of syscall #3
>> (that is the CRID !). It is possible that another syscall #3 occur, on the same
>> container, between steps 4 and 5 ... but then that checkpoint will be assigned
>> another, unique CRID.
> 
> Hm, assuming that, as proposed above, incremental checkpoints are stored in the
> same file as the ancestor full checkpoint, why not simply give fd as argument in
> #5? I'd expect that the kernel would associate the file descriptor to the
> checkpoint until it is finalized (written back, sent over the wire, etc.).

The above procedure, step 1-5 are for a _single_ checkpoint.

Why would the kernel associate a file descriptor with the checkpoint until it
is finalized ?   As far as I'm concerned, the checkpoint call in step 3 can go
without any FD.  Also, what happens if there is another checkpoint, of the
same container, taken between steps 4 and 5, how would you tell the difference
or select which one goes in first ?   Finally, keeping that FD alive between
multiple checkpoints would require the checkpointer (e.g. a daemon that will
periodically checkpoint) to keep it alive.

I view it differently: a checkpoint held in memory is like a kernel resource,
and requires a handle/identifier for user space to refer to it. Like an IPC
object. Why tie that object to a specific file descriptor ?
The only exception I can see, is the need to tie it to a some process - the
checkpointer for instance, such that if that process dies without completing
the work, the checkpoint image in memory will be cleaned up.
That, however, still is problematic, because it will not allow you to use
different procesess for different steps (above).

Since we are not yet optimizing the checkpoint procedure, just building the
infrastructure, my goal is to convince that a CRID is a desired feature (and
I can certainly see how it will be used in various scenarios).

Oren.

> 
> Maybe I'm still missing something...
> 
>>> My $0.02 ...
>> Thanks... American or Canadian ?  ;)
> 
> Since I only have the canadian cityzenship, you can guess easily ;)
> 
> Thanks for your patient explanations!
> 
> Louis
> 


More information about the Containers mailing list