Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030248AbWBTOd4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2006 09:33:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030249AbWBTOd4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2006 09:33:56 -0500 Received: from mailhub.sw.ru ([195.214.233.200]:56327 "EHLO relay.sw.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030248AbWBTOdz (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2006 09:33:55 -0500 Message-ID: <43F9D379.5000803@sw.ru> Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:34:33 +0300 From: Kirill Korotaev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; ru-RU; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030426 X-Accept-Language: ru-ru, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herbert Poetzl CC: "Serge E. Hallyn" , "Eric W. Biederman" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vserver@list.linux-vserver.org, Alan Cox , Dave Hansen , Arjan van de Ven , Suleiman Souhlal , Hubertus Franke , Cedric Le Goater , Kyle Moffett , Greg , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Greg KH , Rik van Riel , Alexey Kuznetsov , Andrey Savochkin , Kirill Korotaev , Andi Kleen , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Jeff Garzik , Trond Myklebust , Jes Sorensen Subject: Re: (pspace,pid) vs true pid virtualization References: <20060215145942.GA9274@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <20060216142928.GA22358@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <43F98DD5.40107@sw.ru> <20060220124745.GC17478@MAIL.13thfloor.at> In-Reply-To: <20060220124745.GC17478@MAIL.13thfloor.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1541 Lines: 39 >>yes, acceptable. >>once, again, believe me, this is very required feature for >>troubleshouting and management (as Eric likes to take about >>maintanance :) ) > IMHO there are certain things which _are_ required > and others which are nice to have but not strictly > required, just think "ptrace across pid spaces" these "nice to have" features often make one solution more usable than another. >>>This is to support using pidspaces for vservers, and creating >>>migrateable sub-pidspaces in each vserver. >> >>this doesn't help to create migratable sub-pidspaces. >>for example, will you share IPCs in your pid parent and child pspaces? >>if yes, then it won't be migratable; > well, not the child pspace, but the parent, no? if IPC objects are shared between them, then they can only be migrated together. >>if no, then you need to create fully isolated spaces to the end and >>again you end up with a question, why nested pspaces are required at >>all? > because we are not trying to implement a VPS only > solution for mainline, we are trying to provide > building blocks for many different uses, including > the VPS approach ... nice! do you think I'm against building blocks? no :) I'm just trying to get out from you how this can be used in real life and how will it work. Kirill - 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/