[CRIU] Lazy-restore design discussion - round 3

[Mike Rapoport]

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 10:45:41AM +0200, Adrian Reber wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 03:48:45PM +0300, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> > >>> I think in this way we will be able to take LRU into account and, in the
> > >>> same time, we'll have better control of network bandwidth consumption at
> > >>> the restore side.
> > >>
> > >> Maybe we'll just equip the pagemap.img with additional data -- the relative
> > >> "hotness" of the respective pagemaps and dump side would first request for
> > >> pages from the hottest ones?
> > > 
> > > Maybe, but I'm not sure that "hotness" of the pagemap gives sufficient
> > > granularity...
> > 
> > True. OK, let's try to go with brains on the restore side.
> 
> Mike, do you still plan to post your page-server --page-client patches?
> I am bringing my remote restore on top of your patches in a submittable
> form and will post them soon. As a start this should go in the right
> direction according to the discussions.

I planned to bring them into a better shape once we have an agreement about
the general direction. But next week we have the Passover holidays, so I'll
be mostly offline.

> 		Adrian
> 

--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.