[Devel] Re: [Ksummit-2010-discuss] checkpoint-restart: naked patch

[Serge Hallyn]

Quoting Tejun Heo (tj at kernel.org):
> * And, most of all, there are userland implementation and
>   virtualization, making the benefit to overhead ratio completely off.
>   Userland implementation _already_ achieves most of what's necessary

Guess I'll just be offensive here and say, straight-out:  I don't
believe it.  Can I see the userspace implementation of c/r?

If it's as good as the kernel level c/r, then aweseome - we don't
need the kernel patches.

If it's not as good, then the thing is, we're not drawing arbitrary
lines saying "is this good enough", rather we want completely
reliable and transparent c/r.  IOW, the running task and the other
end can't tell that a migration happened, and, if checkpoint says
it worked, then restart must succeed.

-serge
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers