Cedric Le Goater <[email protected]> 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 [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]
