[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] PATCH 0/4 - Time virtualization
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 02:25:00AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> That patch should probably be separated, from the rest.
> But it looks like a fairly sane idea.

Yeah, I'll keep these together for now, but the ptrace one is
conceptually different from the rest.

> I think you missed a couple essential things to a time namespace.
> Timers. The posix timers, in particular. The worst
> of those is the monotonic timer.

Oops, thanks for pointing that out.

> In the case of migration the ugly case to properly handle is the
> monotonic timer. That needs an offset yet it is absolutely forbidden
> to provide that offset from the inside. So this is the one namespace
> that I think is inappropriate to use sys_unshare to create.
> We need a system call so that we can specify the minimum or the
> starting monotonic time base.

For migration, it looks like the container will have to specify the
time base at creation so that everything in it will have a consistent
view of time if they get moved around.

So, maybe it belongs in clone as a "backwards" flag similar to

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: 2006-04-26 21:02    [W:0.058 / U:9.928 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site