[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Which of the virtualization approaches is more suitable for kernel?
    Dave Hansen <> writes:

    > On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 14:14 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
    >> I like the namespace nomenclature. (It can be shorted to _space or _ns).
    >> In part because it shortens well, and in part because it emphasizes that
    >> we are *just* dealing with the names.
    > When I was looking at this, I was pretending to be just somebody looking
    > at sysv code, with no knowledge of containers or namespaces.
    > For a person like that, I think names like _space or _ns are pretty much
    > not an option, unless those terms become as integral to the kernel as
    > things like kobjects.

    To be clear I was talking name suffixes. So ipc_space certainly conveys
    something, and even ipc_ns may be ok.

    >> You split the resolution at just ipc_msgs. When I really think it should
    >> be everything ipcs deals with.
    > This was just the first patch. :)


    Just wanted to make certain we agreed on the scope.

    >> Performing the assignment inside the tasklist_lock is not something we
    >> want to do in do_fork().
    > Any particular reason why? There seem to be a number of things done in
    > there that aren't _strictly_ needed under the tasklist_lock. Where
    > would you do it?

    Well all of the other things we can share or not share are already
    outside of the tasklist_lock.

    We may not be quite minimal but we actually are fairly close to minimal
    inside the tasklist_lock.

    >> So it looks like a good start. There are a lot of details yet to be filled
    >> in, proc, sysctl, cleanup on namespace release. (We can still provide
    >> the create destroy methods even if we don't hook the up).
    > Yeah, I saved shm for last because it has the largest number of outside
    > interactions. My current thoughts are that we'll need _contexts or
    > _namespaces associated with /proc mounts as well.

    Yes. I think the easy way to handle this is to have a symlink
    from /proc/sysvipc to /proc/self/sysvipc. And then we have a per
    process reporting area.

    That preserves all of the old programs but enables us to get the
    information out.

    >> I think in this case I would put the actual namespace structure
    >> definition in util.h, and just put a struct ipc_ns in sched.h.
    > Ahhh, as in
    > struct ipc_ns;
    > And just keep a pointer from the task? Yeah, that does keep it quite
    > isolated.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-02-27 23:02    [W:0.037 / U:15.440 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site