On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 02:27:08PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 12/14/2012 02:25 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > > > > this would allow us to defer checkpoint until task finish vdso code. Peter, > > if I understand you correctly you propose we provide some own proxy-vdso > > which would redirect calls to real ones, right? But the main problem > > is that is exactly the idea to be able to c/r existing programs without > > recompiling and such (or I miss something here?). > > No, I'm proposing that you use a proxy-vdso which does nothing but > system calls, and therefore can be stable indefinitely.
This won't help in case of scenario you've been pointing in previous email (where c/r happens in a middle of vdso), would it? Because we still need somehow to be sure we're not checkpointing in a middle of signal handler which will return to some vdso place. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/