On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 01:51:23PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 11:42 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:30:35 -0600 > > Matt Mackall <mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 10:11 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > > > > > > - In bullet-point form, what features are missing, and should be added? > > > > > > > > * support for more architectures than i386 > > > > * file descriptors: > > > > * sockets (network, AF_UNIX, etc...) > > > > * devices files > > > > * shmfs, hugetlbfs > > > > * epoll > > > > * unlinked files > > > > > > > * Filesystem state > > > > * contents of files > > > > * mount tree for individual processes > > > > * flock > > > > * threads and sessions > > > > * CPU and NUMA affinity > > > > * sys_remap_file_pages() > > > > > > I think the real questions is: where are the dragons hiding? Some of > > > these are known to be hard. And some of them are critical checkpointing > > > typical applications. If you have plans or theories for implementing all > > > of the above, then great. But this list doesn't really give any sense of > > > whether we should be scared of what lurks behind those doors. > > > > How close has OpenVZ come to implementing all of this? I think the > > implementatation is fairly complete? > > I also believe it is "fairly complete". At least able to be used > practically. > > > If so, perhaps that can be used as a guide. Will the planned feature > > have a similar design? If not, how will it differ? To what extent can > > we use that implementation as a tool for understanding what this new > > implementation will look like? > > Yes, we can certainly use it as a guide. However, there are some > barriers to being able to do that: > > dave@nimitz:~/kernels/linux-2.6-openvz$ git diff v2.6.27.10... | diffstat | tail -1 > 628 files changed, 59597 insertions(+), 2927 deletions(-) > dave@nimitz:~/kernels/linux-2.6-openvz$ git diff v2.6.27.10... | wc > 84887 290855 2308745 git-diff -- kernel/cpt/ should give more realistic picture. > Unfortunately, the git tree doesn't have that great of a history. It > appears that the forward-ports are just applications of huge single > patches which then get committed into git. This tree has also > historically contained a bunch of stuff not directly related to > checkpoint/restart like resource management. > We'd be idiots not to take a hard look at what has been done in OpenVZ. > But, for the time being, we have absolutely no shortage of things that > we know are important and know have to be done. Our largest problem is > not finding things to do, but is our large out-of-tree patch that is > growing by the day. :( -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
