![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
wa@almesberger.net said: > I see a certain trend towards mechanisms that can be useful for > process migration. E.g. the address space manipulations discussed for > UML seem to allow almost perfect reconstruction of processes. PIDs, > signals, anything with externally visible changes in kernel state With a UML running in skas mode, the process address space is identical to what it would be on the host. Migrating one to the host would be a matter of Sticking a process in it Releasing that process from ptrace Recreating the required kernel state in the host kernel Kicking the process out of the UML kernel and into userspace somehow Letting it run Step 3 is obviously where the meat of the problem is. The process needs to have available on it all the resources it had in UML - the same files network connections (puntable on a first pass) process relationships (I have no idea what to do about a parent process on the host, nor what to do with children whose parent has been migrated, or ipc mechanisms, except to do the Mosix thing and have little proxies sitting around passing information between UML and the host). And since I've brought up Mosix, as did Werner, the fastest way to get this working is probably to finish off the OpenMosix/UML port (which was close from what I heard), and cluster a UML and its host. You should get process migration for free. Just remember to prevent the host from trying to migrate a UML to itself. That would be very bad. Jeff - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:31 [W:0.272 / U:0.780 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||