Re: (pspace,pid) vs true pid virtualization

[Sam Vilain <sam@vilain.net>]

Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> I think the first thing we have to do, is not to decide which pids we 
> want to see, but what and how we want to virtualize.

No, let's not even decide on that :).

I think where we've come to, is that there is no *important* difference
between virtualising on a per-process or a per-process family basis, so
long as you can suitably arrange arbitrary families it is equivalent to
the "pure" method of strict per-process virtualisation as Eric has been
implementing.

> > Depending on the flags on the XID, we can incorporate all the approaches
> > being tabled.  You want virtualised pids?  Well, that'll hurt a little,
> > but suit yourself - set a flag on your container and inside the
> > container you get virtualised PIDs.  You want a flat view for all your
> > vservers?  Fine, just use an XID without the virtualisation flag and
> > with the "all seeing eye" property set.  Or you use an XID _with_ the
> > virtualisation flag set, and then call a tuple-endowed API to find the
> > information you're after.
> This sounds good. But pspaces are also used for access controls. So this 
> should be incorparated there as well.

Yes, and I'm hoping that with the central structure there it should be
easy to start re-basing the Linux VServer patch as well as openvz and
any other similar technology people have.

Then we can cherry-pick features from any of the 'competing' solutions
in this space.

I have a preliminary patch, and hope to have a public submission this
week.

Sam.
-
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/