Serge wrote:
> restarting multiple simulatenous instances of a single
> checkpoint. ... Is there a simple way to solve this?
> (And how valid a concern is this? :)
Offhand, I don't see a way to resolve it in the preallocation scheme.
That's not on my list of stuff to worry about. But, who knows,
someone else might find that a valid concern.
> Other than that, I guess your approach is growing on me...
Oh dear. I'm drifting away from advocating a pid-range preallocation
and toward thinking we need a more systematic approach, design and
architecture. This isn't just pids. Simple range based preallocation
won't help much on some of the other resources that we need to virtualize.
The Zap pods are sounding good to me right now, properly embedded
in the kernel rather than hacking the syscall table via a module.
In any case, I am suspecting that starting the job in some sort
of nice container should be a prerequisite for relocating or
checkpoint/restarting the job.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
