Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Hubertus Franke ([email protected]):
The vpid approach has the drawbacks of having to identify the conversion
spots
of all vpid vs. pid semantics. On the otherhand it does take advantage
of the fact that no virtualization has to take place until a "container"
has been migrated, thus rendering most of the vpid<->pid calls to be
noops.
What I like about the pspace approach is that it explicitely defines in the
code
when I am using a different pspace for the lookup. That is kind of hidden in
the vpid/pid approach.
I agree with this. From a maintenance pov, imagining making a minor
change to some pid-related code, if I see something doing effectively
"if (pspace1 == pspace2 && pid1==pid2)" that is clear, whereas trying
to remember whether I'm supposed to return the pid or vpid can get
really confusing. We actually had some errors with that while we were
developing the first vpid patchset we posted in december.
I believe that from a vserver point of view, either approach will work.
You either create a new pspace and make 'init' pid 1 in that pspace, or,
in the openvz approach, you start virtualizing with a hashtable so
userspace in the new vserver/container/vz/whateveritscalled sees that
init as pid1, while the rest of the system sees it as pid 3270 or
something.
Likewise, for checkpoint/restore and migration, either approach works.
All we really need is, on restore/migrate, to be able to create
processes with their original pids, so we can do that either with real
pids in a new container, or virtualized pids faked for process in the
same vz.
Are there other uses of pid virtualization which one approach or the
other cannot accomodate?
Kirill brought up that VPS can span a cluster..
if so how do you (Kirill) do that? You pre-partition the pids into allocation
ranges for each container?
Eitherway, if this is an important feature, then one needs to look at
how that is achieved in pspace (e.g. mod the pidmap_alloc() function
to take legal ranges into account). Should still be straight forward.
If not, then I for one lean towards the more maintainable code. (which
I'm sure we're not agreed on is Eric's, but imvho it is)
-serge
-
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]
