Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:01:48 +1300 | From | Sam Vilain <> | Subject | Re: (pspace,pid) vs true pid virtualization |
| |
Kirill Korotaev wrote: > I think the first thing we have to do, is not to decide which pids we > want to see, but what and how we want to virtualize.
No, let's not even decide on that :).
I think where we've come to, is that there is no *important* difference between virtualising on a per-process or a per-process family basis, so long as you can suitably arrange arbitrary families it is equivalent to the "pure" method of strict per-process virtualisation as Eric has been implementing.
>> Depending on the flags on the XID, we can incorporate all the approaches >> being tabled. You want virtualised pids? Well, that'll hurt a little, >> but suit yourself - set a flag on your container and inside the >> container you get virtualised PIDs. You want a flat view for all your >> vservers? Fine, just use an XID without the virtualisation flag and >> with the "all seeing eye" property set. Or you use an XID _with_ the >> virtualisation flag set, and then call a tuple-endowed API to find the >> information you're after. > This sounds good. But pspaces are also used for access controls. So this > should be incorparated there as well.
Yes, and I'm hoping that with the central structure there it should be easy to start re-basing the Linux VServer patch as well as openvz and any other similar technology people have.
Then we can cherry-pick features from any of the 'competing' solutions in this space.
I have a preliminary patch, and hope to have a public submission this week.
Sam. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |