| Re: Which of the virtualization approaches is more suitable for kernel? [message #1833 is a reply to message #1832] |
Mon, 27 February 2006 21:35   |
Dave Hansen
Messages: 240
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
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.
> 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. :)
> 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?
> 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.
> 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.
-- Dave
|
|
|
|
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
