On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 07:47 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Alas, the spacing on the picture didn't quite work out :) I think that
> by nested containers, you mean overlapping nested containers. In your
> example, how are you suggesting that cont1 refers to items in
> container1.1.2's shmem? I assume, given your previous posts on openvz,
> that you want every shmem id in all namespaces "nested" under cont1 to
> be unique, and for cont1 to refer to any item in container1.1.2's
> namespace just as it would any of cont1's own shmem?
>
> In that case I am not sure of the actual usefulness. Someone with
> different use for containers (you? :) will need to justify it. For me,
> pure isolation works just fine. Clearly it will be most useful if we
> want fine-grained administration, from parent namespaces, of the items
> in a child namespace.
The overlapping is important if you want to pretend that the
namespace-able resources are allowed to be specified per-process, when
really they are specified per-family.
In this way, a process family is merely a grouping of processes with
like namespaces, and depending on which way they overlap you get the
same behaviour as when processes only have one resource different, and
therefore remove the overhead on fork().
Sam.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
