Re: [PATCH 0/6] containers: Generic Process Containers (V6) [message #9471 is a reply to message #9446] |
Fri, 05 January 2007 00:25 |
Paul Menage
Messages: 642 Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi Serge,
On 1/3/07, Serge E. Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> From: Serge E. Hallyn <serue@us.ibm.com>
> Subject: [RFC] [PATCH 1/1] container: define a namespace container subsystem
>
> Here's a stab at a namespace container subsystem based on
> Paul Menage's containers patch, just to experiment with
> how semantics suit what we want.
Thanks for looking at this.
What you have here is the basic boilerplate for any generic container
subsystem. I realise that my current containers patch has some
incompatibilities with the way that nsproxy wants to work.
>
> A few things we'll want to address:
>
> 1. We'll want to be able to hook things like
> rmdir, so that we can rm -rf /containers/vserver1
> to kill all processes in that container and all
> child containers.
The current model is that rmdir fails if there are any processes still
in the container; so you'd have to kill processes by looking for pids
in the "tasks" info file. This was behaviour inherited from the
cpusets code; I'd be open to making this more configurable (e.g.
specifying that rmdir should try to kill any remaining tasks).
>
> 2. We need a semantic difference between attaching
> to a container, and being the first to join the
> container you just created.
Right - the way to do this would probably be some kind of
"container_clone()" function that duplicates the properties of the
current container in a child, and immediately moves the current
process into that container.
>
> 3. We will want to be able to give the container
> attach function more info, so that we can ask to
> attach to just the network namespace, but none of
> the others, in the container we're attaching to.
If you want to be able to attach to different namespaces separately,
then possibly they should be separate container subsystems?
Paul
|
|
|