On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 11:53 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> In any case, by designing checkpointing to reuse the existing LSM
> callbacks, we'd hit multiple birds with the same stone. (One of
> which is the constant complaints about the runtime costs of the LSM
> callbacks - with checkpointing we get a
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 15:28 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > For extra marks:
> > >
> > > - Will any of this involve non-trivial serialisation of kernel
> > > objects? If so, that's getting into the
> > > unacceptably-expensive-to-maintain space, I suspect.
> >
> > We have some structures t
