| Re: Which of the virtualization approaches is more suitable for kernel? [message #1802 is a reply to message #1800] |
Fri, 24 February 2006 23:01   |
Herbert Poetzl
Messages: 239
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 02:44:42PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Kirill Korotaev <dev@sw.ru> writes:
>
> > Linus, Andrew,
> >
> > We need your help on what virtualization approach you would accept
> > to mainstream (if any) and where we should go.
> >
> > If to drop VPID virtualization which caused many disputes, we
> > actually have the one virtualization solution, but 2 approaches for
> > it. Which one will go depends on the goals and your approval any
> > way.
>
> My apologies for not replying sooner.
>
> > From the looks of previous replies I think we have some valid
> > commonalities that we can focus on.
>
> Largely we all agree that to applications things should look exactly
> as they do now. Currently we do not agree on management interfaces.
>
> We seem to have much more agreement on everything except pids, so
> discussing some of the other pieces looks worth while.
>
> So I propose we the patches to solve the problem into three categories.
> - General cleanups that simplify or fix problems now, but have
> a major advantage for our work.
> - The kernel internal implementation of the various namespaces
> without an interface to create new ones.
> - The new interfaces for how we create and control containers/namespaces.
proposal accepted on my side
> This should allow the various approach to start sharing code, getting
> progressively closer to each other until we have an implementation we
> can agree is ready to go into Linus's kernel. Plus that will allow us
> to have our technical flame wars without totally stopping progress.
>
> We can start on a broad front, looking at several different things.
> But I suggest the first thing we all look at is SYSVIPC. It is
> currently a clearly recognized namespace in the kernel so the scope is
> well defined. SYSVIPC is just complicated enough to have a non-trivial
> implementation while at the same time being simple enough that we can
> go through the code in exhausting detail. Getting the group dynamics
> working properly.
okay, sounds good ...
> Then we can as a group look at networking, pids, and the other pieces.
>
> But I do think it is important that we take the problem in pieces
> because otherwise it is simply to large to review properly.
definitely
best,
Herbert
> Eric
> -
> 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/
|
|
|
|
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
