[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090314002656.GA12337@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:26:56 -0500
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hpa@...or.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: What can OpenVZ do?
Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@...ssion.com):
> Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:45:03PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>
> >> * Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 11:27:32AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> > > Merging checkpoints instead might give them the incentive to get
> >> > > their act together.
> >> >
> >> > Knowing how much time it takes to beat CPT back into usable shape every time
> >> > big kernel rebase is done, OpenVZ/Virtuozzo have every single damn incentive
> >> > to have CPT mainlined.
> >>
> >> So where is the bottleneck? I suspect the effort in having forward ported
> >> it across 4 major kernel releases in a single year is already larger than
> >> the technical effort it would take to upstream it. Any unreasonable upstream
> >> resistence/passivity you are bumping into?
> >
> > People were busy with netns/containers stuff and OpenVZ/Virtuozzo bugs.
>
> Yes. Getting the namespaces particularly the network namespace finished
> has consumed a lot of work.
>
> Then we have a bunch of people helping with ill conceived patches that seem
> to wear out the patience of people upstream. Al, Greg kh, Linus.
>
> The whole recent ressurection of the question of we should have a clone
> with pid syscall.
/me points
Alexey started it :)
But, Linus asks to start with simple checkpoint/restart patches. Oren's
basic patchset pretty much does that, though, right? Patches 1-7 just
do a basic single task. 8-10 add simple open files. 11, 13 and 14 do
external checkpoint and multiple tasks.
Are these an ok place to start, or do these need to be simplified even
more?
-serge
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists