From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60DF76B003D for ; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 06:45:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:45:03 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: What can OpenVZ do? Message-ID: <20090213114503.GG15679@elte.hu> References: <1233076092-8660-1-git-send-email-orenl@cs.columbia.edu> <1234285547.30155.6.camel@nimitz> <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090213113248.GA15275@x200.localdomain> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Alexey Dobriyan Cc: Dave Hansen , Andrew Morton , Matt Mackall , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de, Pavel Emelyanov List-ID: * Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 11:27:32AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Dave Hansen wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > 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. > > > > Really, OpenVZ/Virtuozzo does not seem to have enough incentive to merge > > upstream, they only seem to forward-port, keep their tree messy, do minimal > > work to reduce the cross section to the rest of the kernel (so that they can > > manage the forward ports) but otherwise are happy with their carved-out > > niche market. [which niche is also spiced with some proprietary add-ons, > > last i checked, not exactly the contribution environment that breeds a > > healthy flow of patches towards the upstream kernel.] > > Oh, cut the crap! > > > 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? Ingo -- 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