Difference between revisions of "History"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "* Pavel sent POC in LKML. From: Pavel Emelyanov Subject: [RFC][PATCH 0/7 + tools] Checkpoint/restore mostly in the userspace Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 17:45:10 +0400 * Jonathan ...") |
|||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
eventually comes to tears and the project as a whole fails, it should | eventually comes to tears and the project as a whole fails, it should | ||
be a simple matter to go through and delete all trace of it. | be a simple matter to go through and delete all trace of it. | ||
+ | * Andrew Morton starts to doubt in CRIU [https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/14/384 "link"] | ||
+ | Thus far our (my) approach has been to trickle the c/r support code | ||
+ | into mainline as it is developed. Under the assumption that the end | ||
+ | result will be acceptable and useful kernel code. | ||
+ | |||
+ | I'm afraid that I'm losing confidence in that approach. We have this | ||
+ | patchset, we have Stanislav's "IPC: checkpoint/restore in userspace | ||
+ | enhancements" (which apparently needs to get more complex to support | ||
+ | LSM context c/r). I simply *don't know* what additional patchsets are | ||
+ | expected. And from what you told me it sounds like networking support | ||
+ | is at a very early stage and I fear for what the end result of that | ||
+ | will look like. | ||
+ | |||
+ | So I don't feel that I can continue feeding these things into mainline | ||
+ | until someone can convince me that we won't have a nasty mess (and/or | ||
+ | an unsufficiently useful feature) at the end of the project. |
Revision as of 09:05, 5 March 2012
- Pavel sent POC in LKML.
From: Pavel Emelyanov Subject: [RFC][PATCH 0/7 + tools] Checkpoint/restore mostly in the userspace Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 17:45:10 +0400
- Jonathan Corbet wrote the article at lwn.net "Checkpoint/restart (mostly) in user space"
- Linus merged a first wave of patches, adding his thoughts about this (commit 0994695)
- checkpoint/restart feature work. A note on this: this is a project by various mad Russians to perform c/r mainly from userspace, with various oddball helper code added into the kernel where the need is demonstrated. So rather than some large central lump of code, what we have is little bits and pieces popping up in various places which either expose something new or which permit something which is normally kernel-private to be modified. The overall project is an ongoing thing. I've judged that the size and scope of the thing means that we're more likely to be successful with it if we integrate the support into mainline piecemeal rather than allowing it all to develop out-of-tree. However I'm less confident than the developers that it will all eventually work! So what I'm asking them to do is to wrap each piece of new code inside CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE. So if it all eventually comes to tears and the project as a whole fails, it should be a simple matter to go through and delete all trace of it.
- Andrew Morton starts to doubt in CRIU "link"
Thus far our (my) approach has been to trickle the c/r support code into mainline as it is developed. Under the assumption that the end result will be acceptable and useful kernel code. I'm afraid that I'm losing confidence in that approach. We have this patchset, we have Stanislav's "IPC: checkpoint/restore in userspace enhancements" (which apparently needs to get more complex to support LSM context c/r). I simply *don't know* what additional patchsets are expected. And from what you told me it sounds like networking support is at a very early stage and I fear for what the end result of that will look like. So I don't feel that I can continue feeding these things into mainline until someone can convince me that we won't have a nasty mess (and/or an unsufficiently useful feature) at the end of the project.