Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation.

The questions seem to break down into:
1) Where do we put the references to the different namespaces?
- Do we put the references in a struct container that we reference from struct task_struct?
- Do we put the references directly in struct task_struct?


You "cache" task_struct->container->hotsubsys under task_struct->hotsubsys.
We don't change containers other then at clone time, so no coherency issue here !!!!
Which subsystems pointers to "cache", should be agreed by the experts,
but first approach should always not to cache and go through the container.
agreed. I see no much reason to cache it and make tons of the same pointers in all the tasks. Only if needed.
Also, in OpenVZ container has many fields intergrated inside, so there is no additional dereference, but task->container->subsys_field

2) What is the syscall interface to create these namespaces?
- Do we add clone flags? (Plan 9 style)
Like that approach .. flexible .. particular when one has well specified namespaces.
mmm, how do you plan to pass additional flags to clone()?
e.g. strong or weak isolation of pids?

another questions:
how do you plan to meet the dependancies between namespaces?
e.g. conntracks require netfilters to be initialized.
network requires sysctls and proc to be initialized and so on.
do you propose to track all this in clone()? huh...

- Do we add a syscall (similar to setsid) per namespace?
(Traditional unix style)?
can be so...

- Do we in addition add syscalls to manipulate containers generically?

I don't think having a single system call to create a container and a new
instance of each namespace is reasonable as that does not give us a
path into the future when we create yet another namespace.

Agreed.
why do you think so?
this syscalls will start handling this new namespace and that's all.
this is not different from many syscalls approach.

4) How do we implement each of these namespaces?
Besides being maintainable are there other constraints?

Good question... at least with PID and FS two are there ..

6) How do we do all of this efficiently without a noticeable impact on
performance?
- I have already heard concerns that I might be introducing cache
line bounces and thus increasing tasklist_lock hold time.
Which on big way systems can be a problem.
this is nothing compared to hierarchy operations.
BTW, heirarchy also introduces complicated resource accounting, sometimes making it even impossible.

Kirill

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation.
    ... Where do we put the references to the different namespaces? ... - Do we put the references in a struct container that we reference ... but first approach should always not to cache and go through the container. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction
    ... Having a central umbrella object (let's stick to the name container) ... additionally in the task struct. ... For OpenVZ having the other namespaces nested may have some ... an direct access to those "namespaces" for performance reasons. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: The issues for agreeing on a virtualization/namespaces implementation.
    ... my namespace concept that isolates multiple resources. ... Where do we put the references to the different namespaces? ... - Do we put the references in a struct container that we reference from struct task_struct? ... but first approach should always not to cache and go through the container. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • [PATCH 1/1] containers: implement nsproxy containers subsystem
    ... container is created and the task moves into it. ... general any application of per-process namespaces. ... There is just one ida for all containers, ... struct container *top_container; ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: [PATCH 0/7] containers (V7): Generic Process Containers
    ... then "container" seems like a good name for my ... The aggregation happens at the task struct when you apply different ... to have some namespaces, possibly not aggregated within the nsproxy ... other new resource controllers and process control modules. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)