[Ksummit-2010-discuss] checkpoint-restart: naked patch
serge.hallyn at canonical.com
Thu Nov 18 20:10:45 PST 2010
Quoting Tejun Heo (tj at kernel.org):
> Hello, Serge.
Hey Tejun :)
> On 11/17/2010 04:39 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >> I'm sorry but in-kernel CR already looks like a major misdesign to me.
> > By this do you mean the very idea of having CR support in the kernel?
> > Or our design of it in the kernel?
> The former, I'm afraid.
> > Let's go back to July 2008, at the containers mini-summit, where it
> > was unanimously agreed upon that the kernel was the right place
> > (Checkpoint/Resetart [CR] under
> > http://wiki.openvz.org/Containers/Mini-summit_2008_notes ), and that
> > we would start by supporting a single task with no resources. Was
> > that whole discussion effectively misguided, in your opinion? Or do
> > you feel that since the first steps outlined in that discussion
> > we've either "gone too far" or strayed in the subsequent design?
> The conclusion doesn't seem like such a good idea, well, at least to
> me for what it's worth. Conclusions at summits don't carry decisive
Of course. It allows us to present at kernel summit and look for early
rejections to save us all some time (which we did, at the container
mini-summit readout at ksummit 2008), but it would be silly to read
anything more into it than that.
> It'll still have to prove its worthiness for mainline all the
> and in light of already working userland alternative and the
Here's where we disagree. If you are right about a viable userland
alternative ('already working' isn't even a preqeq in my opinion,
so long as it is really viable), then I'm with you, but I'm not buying
it at this point.
Seriously. Truly. Honestly. I am *not* looking for any extra kernel
work at this moment, if we can help it in any way.
> expanded area now covered by virtualization, the arguments in this
> thread don't seem too strong.
More information about the Containers