lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 2/7] VPIDs: pid/vpid conversions
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 05:57:15PM +0300, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> >Do you know how incomplete this patch is?
> >You missed drivers/char/drm, and in your shipping OpenVZ patch.
> >You missed get_xpid() on alpha.
> >You missed nfs.
> DRM/NFS code is correct.
>
> The only correct thing you noticed is get_xpid on alpha. But this is
> in fact a simple bug and half a year before we didn't care much for
> archs others than i386/x86-64/ia64. That's it.

sidenote on that, maybe the various archs could
switch to C implementations of those 'special'
get_xpid() and friends, as I do not think they
are a) done that often (might be wrong there)
and b) recent gcc should get that right now anyway

> >I suspect the tagging of the VPIDS and the WARN_ON's help so you have
> >a chance of catching things if someone uses a code path you haven't
> >caught. But I don't see how you can possibly get full kernel
> >coverage.
> simple, the same way as you did, i.e. by renaming pid to tid or
> something like this.
>
> >Is there a plan to catch all of the in-kernel use of pids that I am
> >being to dense to see?
> if Linus will be ready to take it into mainstream, it will be
> caught all. Actually only asm files should be investigated due to
> optimizations similar to those on IA64/Alpha. Everything else I
> suppose is correct and can be rechecked only.

> And now a bit of contstructive ideas/things:

> I propose to stop VPIDs discussion and switch to virtualization of
> networking, IPC and so on, which is essentially the same in yours and
> our solutions (openvz).

> I took a look to your patch, it does actually the same things as
> openvz, almost thing by thing. But it is BUGGY! You have broken
> IPC/networking, many things to these subsytems are not virtualized
> etc. We need to get Linus comment about which approach is the best for
> him, with namespace pointers on task_struct involved by you or with
> effective container pointer. It is only a matter of his taste, but the
> result is effectively the same. Agree?

> Actually we don't care whether virtualization introduces one container
> pointer on the task struct or as you proposed many pointers to
> namespaces. But you are WRONG IMHO thinking that this namespaces are
> independent and this allows you more fine grained virtualization. All
> these namespaces are tightly intergrated with each other(sic!).

> For example, networking is coupled with sysctl, which in turn are
> coupled with proc filesystem. And sysfs! You even added a piece of code
> in net/core/net-sysfs.c in your patch, which is a dirty hack.
> Another example, mqueues and other subsystems which use netlinks and
> also depend on network context.

> shmem/IPC is dependand on file system context and so on.
> So it won't work when one have networking from one container and proc
> from another.

the question should be: which part of proc should be part
of the pid space and which not, definitely the network
stuff would _not_ be part of the pid space ...

> So I really see no much reasons to have separate namespaces,
> but it is ok for me if someone really wants it this way.

the reasons are, as I explained several times, that folks
use 'virtualization' or 'isolation' for many different
things, just because SWsoft only uses it for VPS doesn't
meant that it cannot be used for other things

just consider isolating/virtualizing the network stack,
but leaving the processes in the same pid space, how to
do that in a sane way with a single reference?

> We also don't care whether yours or our network virtualization will go
> upstream. They do _exactly_ the same. You also virtualized IPv6 which is
> good, since we have only IPv4, but you totally missed netfilters, which
> is bad :) So again the only difference is that we have effective
> container on the task, while you prefer to take it from sk/netdev or
> bypass as an additional function argument.
>
> So I propose the following:
> 1. ask Linus about the preffered approach. I prepared an email for him
> with a description of approaches.

why do you propose, if you already did? :)

> 2. start from networking/netfilters/IPC which are essentially the same
> in both projects and help each other.

no problem with that, once Eric got there ...

best,
Herbert

> 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-02-20 17:59    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site