Quoting Dan Smith ([email protected]): > SH> +static inline void task_show_checkpointable(struct seq_file *m, > SH> + struct task_struct *p) > SH> +{ > SH> + if (test_bit(0, &p->mm->may_checkpoint)) > SH> + seq_printf(m, "mm is checkpointable\n"); > ^^^ > You have a hard tab in the middle of the line. Was that intentional? > > SH> + else > SH> + seq_printf(m, "mm is not checkpointable\n"); > SH> + > SH> + if (test_bit(0, &p->files->may_checkpoint)) > SH> + seq_printf(m, "files are checkpointable\n"); > SH> + else > SH> + seq_printf(m, "files are not checkpointable\n"); > SH> +} > > These too. > > SH> +static inline void __mm_deny_checkpointing(struct mm_struct *mm, > SH> + char *file, int line) > SH> +{ > SH> + if (!test_and_clear_bit(0, &mm->may_checkpoint)) > SH> + return; > SH> + printk(KERN_INFO "process performed an (mm) action that can not be " > SH> + "checkpointed at: %s:%d\n", file, line); > SH> +} > SH> +#define mm_deny_checkpointing(f) \ > SH> + __mm_deny_checkpointing(f, __FILE__, __LINE__) > > There is no definition of mm_deny_checkpointing() outside of > CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTART, which means that you get a build error > because mm->may_checkpoint is only present when CR is enabled. > > SH> - WARN_ON(1); > SH> + //WARN_ON(1); > > I assume commenting this out wasn't intended to be in this patch.
Yeah that's why I said I would clean it up before sending to lkml :) I was especially curious whether using vm_stat_account to catch the offending mmaps seemed sensible. thanks, -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
