Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751128AbWBJFoZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:44:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751133AbWBJFoY (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:44:24 -0500 Received: from b3162.static.pacific.net.au ([203.143.238.98]:19413 "EHLO cust8446.nsw01.dataco.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751128AbWBJFoX (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:44:23 -0500 From: Nigel Cunningham Organization: Cyclades Corporation To: "Eric W. Biederman" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] Virtualization/containers: startup Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 15:40:56 +1000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: Dave Hansen , Kirill Korotaev , Linus Torvalds , Kirill Korotaev , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , frankeh@watson.ibm.com, clg@fr.ibm.com, greg@kroah.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, serue@us.ibm.com, arjan@infradead.org, Rik van Riel , Alexey Kuznetsov , Andrey Savochkin , devel@openvz.org, Pavel Emelianov References: <43E38BD1.4070707@openvz.org> <1139243874.6189.71.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1642133.X4aiA4iKce"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200602101541.07631.ncunningham@cyclades.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2252 Lines: 62 --nextPart1642133.X4aiA4iKce Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Hi. On Tuesday 07 February 2006 04:37, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Dave Hansen 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=20 processes. Software suspend on the other hand, deals with the whole system,= =20 of which process data/context is only a part. Regards, Nigel --nextPart1642133.X4aiA4iKce Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBD7CdzN0y+n1M3mo0RApY3AKDVDudQK48i8jz7c0xW+MTe4ThBAgCfVBci xtGWfEr+u9rgKYtzitfZsvE= =KZIX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1642133.X4aiA4iKce-- - 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/