From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761719AbZCNAyA (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:54:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759927AbZCNA1E (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:27:04 -0400 Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.152]:48458 "EHLO e34.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751456AbZCNA1B (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:27:01 -0400 Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:26:56 -0500 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Alexey Dobriyan , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, Matt Mackall , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dave Hansen , linux-mm@kvack.org, tglx@linutronix.de, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, hpa@zytor.com, Ingo Molnar , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Andrew Morton , Pavel Emelyanov Subject: Re: What can OpenVZ do? Message-ID: <20090314002656.GA12337@us.ibm.com> References: <20090211141434.dfa1d079.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1234462282.30155.171.camel@nimitz> <1234467035.3243.538.camel@calx> <20090212114207.e1c2de82.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1234475483.30155.194.camel@nimitz> <20090213102732.GB4608@elte.hu> <20090213113248.GA15275@x200.localdomain> <20090213114503.GG15679@elte.hu> <20090213222818.GA17630@x200.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xmission.com): > Alexey Dobriyan writes: > > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:45:03PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> > >> * Alexey Dobriyan 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" Subject: Re: What can OpenVZ do? Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:26:56 -0500 Message-ID: <20090314002656.GA12337@us.ibm.com> References: <20090211141434.dfa1d079.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1234462282.30155.171.camel@nimitz> <1234467035.3243.538.camel@calx> <20090212114207.e1c2de82.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1234475483.30155.194.camel@nimitz> <20090213102732.GB4608@elte.hu> <20090213113248.GA15275@x200.localdomain> <20090213114503.GG15679@elte.hu> <20090213222818.GA17630@x200.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Alexey Dobriyan , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, Matt Mackall , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dave Hansen , linux-mm@kvack.org, tglx@linutronix.de, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, hpa@zytor.com, Ingo Molnar , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Andrew Morton , Pavel Emelyanov List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xmission.com): > Alexey Dobriyan writes: > > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:45:03PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> > >> * Alexey Dobriyan 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, 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: email@kvack.org