Re: What can OpenVZ do?

Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xmission.com):

Alexey Dobriyan [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:45:03PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:

quoted

* Alexey Dobriyan [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 11:27:32AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:

quoted

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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>