Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] Virtualization/containers: startup | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Date | Mon, 06 Feb 2006 18:57:05 -0700 |
| |
Cedric Le Goater <clg@fr.ibm.com> writes:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> As someone said to me a little bit ago, for migration or checkpointing >> ultimately you have to capture the entire user/kernel interface if >> things are going to work properly. Now if we add this facility to >> the kernel and it is a general purpose facility. It is only a matter >> of time before we need to deal with nested containers. >> >> Not considering the case of having nested containers now is just foolish. >> Maybe we don't have to implement it yet but not considering it is silly. > > That could be restricted. Today, process groups are not nested. Why do you > think nested containers are inevitable ?
process groups are a completely different kind of beast. A closer analogy are hierarchical name spaces and mounts. If we didn't need things like waitpid outside one pid namespace to wait for a nested namespace they would be complete disjoint and the implementation would be trivial.
>> As far as I can tell there is a very reasonable chance that when we >> are complete there is a very reasonable chance that software suspend >> will just be a special case of migration, done complete in user space. > > Being able to sofware suspend one container among many would be a very > interesting feature to have.
That is what checkpointing. And that is simply the persistent form of migration.
Eric
- 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/
| |