Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] Virtualization/containers: startup

[Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@cyclades.com>]

Hi.

On Tuesday 07 February 2006 04:37, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com> writes:
> > On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 02:19 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> That you placed the namespaces in a separate structure from
> >> task_struct.
> >> That part seems completely unnecessary, that and the addition of a
> >> global id in a completely new namespace that will be a pain to
> >> virtualize
> >> when it's time comes.
> >
> > Could you explain a bit why the container ID would need to be
> > virtualized?
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
> That is one of the more practical examples I can think of where this
> kind of functionality would be used.

Am I missing something? I though migration referred only to userspace 
processes. Software suspend on the other hand, deals with the whole system, 
of which process data/context is only a part.

Regards,

Nigel

Attachment: pgpfpBxMCP31q.pgp
Description: PGP signature