[Ksummit-2010-discuss] checkpoint-restart: naked patch
gene at ccs.neu.edu
Sun Nov 28 20:09:51 PST 2010
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:04:16AM -0500, Oren Laadan wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Kapil Arya wrote:
> > OL> Even if it did - the question is not how to deal with "glue"
> > OL> (you demonstrated quite well how to do that with DMTCP), but
> > OL> how should teh basic, core c/r functionality work - which is
> > OL> below, and orthogonal to the "glue".
> > There seems to be an implicit assumption that it is easy to separate the DMTCP
> > "glue code" from the DMTCP C/R engine as separate modules. DMTCP is modular but
> > it splits the problems into modules along a different line than Linux C/R. We
> > look forward to the joint experiment in which we would try to combine DMTCP
> > with Linux C/R. This will help answer the question in our mind.
> I apologize for being blunt - but this is probably an issue specific to
> DMTCP's engineering...
I completely agree with you, Oren. DMTCP was never designed to be split
into a userland and in-kernel replacement. We will want to re-factor
DMTCP to make this happen.
I'm sorry if my e-mail came off as confrontational. That was not my
intention. I was just looking forward to an interesting intellectual
experiment --- how to go about combining DMTCP and Linux C/R. I was
trying to guess ahead of time where there are interesting challenges, and
my hope is that we will find a way to solve them together.
More information about the Containers