OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [RFC][PATCH] VPIDs: Virtualization of PIDs (OpenVZ approach)
Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/7] VPIDs: pid/vpid conversions [message #1743 is a reply to message #1730] Tue, 21 February 2006 23:17 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Herbert Poetzl is currently offline  Herbert Poetzl
Messages: 239
Registered: February 2006
Senior Member
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 07:19:01PM +0300, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
>>>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 also wonder why it was required and can't be done in normal way...
>Maybe worth trying to switch to C, really.
definitely
>>>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 ...
>Ok, just one simple question:
>how do you propose to handle network sysctls and network
>statistics/information in proc?
well, procfs is called procfs because it is/was?
supposed to contain process information, otherwise
it would have been called netfs or statfs or even
junkfs :)
>_how_ can you imagine this namespaces should work?
>I see no elegant solution for this, do you?
>If there is any, I will be happy with namespaces again.
junkfs parts need to be properly virtualized, the
procfs parts do not.
>>>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
>Out of curiosity, do you have any _working_ examples of other usages?
>I see only theoretical examples from you, but would like to hear from
>anyone who _uses_/_knows_ how to use it.
seems we are going in circles here, I already gave
a detailed list of _actual_ uses which are different
from the VPS approach
>>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?
>I see... Any idea why this can be required?
>(without proc? :) )
>BTW, if you have virtualized networking, but not isolated fs namespace
>in this case, how are you going to handle unix sockets? Or maybe it's
>another separate namespace?
two httpd servers could easily bind to a subset of
the host IP addresses while sharing the pid space
(and other spaces). guess what, that actually works
and is in use ...
>>>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? :)
>because, the question was quite simple, isn't it?
no comment
>>>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 ...
>Kirill
best,
Herbert
PS: as one can see, I gave up on fixing your unreadable
quoting, so don't expect readability ...

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: vzmemcheck displays wrong values?
Next Topic: openvz + ipv6
Goto Forum:
  

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Sat Aug 30 13:45:49 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.12562 seconds
Powered by FUDforum Powered by Virtuozzo Containers