[Devel] Re: [PATCH 10/30] cr: core stuff
Serge E. Hallyn
serue at us.ibm.com
Tue Apr 14 08:29:51 PDT 2009
Quoting Oren Laadan (orenl at cs.columbia.edu):
>
> Hi,
>
> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Alexey Dobriyan (adobriyan at gmail.com):
> >
> > Hi Alexey,
> >
> > as far as I can see, the main differences between this patch and the
> > equivalent in Oren's tree are:
> >
> > 1. kernel auto-selects container init to freeze
>
> Actually, this eliminates the possibility to checkpoint a subtree of
> tasks, which (under some obvious constraints) can be a handy feature.
Yes, I agree. As Dave pointed out on irc yesterday, this patch shows a
very definate whole-container-only point of view which is worth
discussing.
> > 2. kernel freezes tasks
>
> IMHO better to do it in userspace - that way userspace can accomplish
> other tasks while tasks are frozen, such as snapshot the filesystem,
> or block/unblock the network.
That's a good point.
> Is there a good argument to do it kernel ?
Convenience? I guess you don't have to worry about getting your
checkpoint job into a cgroup by itself ahead of time.
> > 3. no objhash taking references
> > 4. no hbuf
> > 5. always require CAP_SYS_ADMIN
>
> I'm now convinced (thanks, Serge!) that it's better not to require
> this unless we strictly have to.
:) Cool.
I think the perceived need for it comes, as above, from the pure
checkpoint-a-whole-container-only view. So long as you will
checkpoint/restore a whole container, then you'll end up doing
something requiring privilege anyway. But that is not all of
the use cases.
-serge
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
More information about the Devel
mailing list