Re: [RFC] [PATCH 00/13] Introduce task_pid api

[Cedric Le Goater <clg@fr.ibm.com>]

Paul Jackson wrote:

> Oh dear.  I'm drifting away from advocating a pid-range preallocation
> and toward thinking we need a more systematic approach, design and
> architecture.  This isn't just pids.  Simple range based preallocation
> won't help much on some of the other resources that we need to virtualize.

Ah ! you said the word: "virtualize".

> The Zap pods are sounding good to me right now, properly embedded
> in the kernel rather than hacking the syscall table via a module.

hacking the syscall table via a module is evil and does not work. You can't
hack pids in a signal siginfo that way, you won't support NPTL, etc.

> In any case, I am suspecting that starting the job in some sort
> of nice container should be a prerequisite for relocating or
> checkpoint/restarting the job.

Indeed. Did you ever think about using PAGG as a foundation for a
checkpoint/restart container ?

Aggregation and isolation are key requirements for checkpoint/restart. And
then, the next one that comes on the list is private namespace or
virtualization, depends how you call it :)

C.