Re: (pspace,pid) vs true pid virtualization

[Kirill Korotaev <dev@sw.ru>]

>>yes, acceptable.
>>once, again, believe me, this is very required feature for
>>troubleshouting and management (as Eric likes to take about
>>maintanance :) )

> IMHO there are certain things which _are_ required
> and others which are nice to have but not strictly
> required, just think "ptrace across pid spaces"
these "nice to have" features often make one solution more usable than 
another.

>>>This is to support using pidspaces for vservers, and creating
>>>migrateable sub-pidspaces in each vserver.
>>
>>this doesn't help to create migratable sub-pidspaces.
>>for example, will you share IPCs in your pid parent and child pspaces?
>>if yes, then it won't be migratable;
> well, not the child pspace, but the parent, no?
if IPC objects are shared between them, then they can only be migrated 
together.

>>if no, then you need to create fully isolated spaces to the end and
>>again you end up with a question, why nested pspaces are required at
>>all?
> because we are not trying to implement a VPS only
> solution for mainline, we are trying to provide
> building blocks for many different uses, including
> the VPS approach ...
nice! do you think I'm against building blocks?
no :) I'm just trying to get out from you how this can be used in real 
life and how will it work.

Kirill