From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 25 08:21:22 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D71437B401 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 08:21:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from demos.su (mx.demos.su [194.87.0.32]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B015443FF2 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 08:21:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mitya@fling-wing.demos.su) Received: from [194.87.5.69] (HELO fling-wing.demos.su) by demos.su (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1b7/D) with ESMTP-TLS id 78049492; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:21:19 +0400 Received: from fling-wing.demos.su (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fling-wing.demos.su (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h5PFLJ5R033397; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:21:19 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from mitya@fling-wing.demos.su) Received: (from mitya@localhost) by fling-wing.demos.su (8.12.9/8.12.6/Submit) id h5PFLJa8033396; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:21:19 +0400 (MSD) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:21:19 +0400 From: Dmitry Sivachenko To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek Message-ID: <20030625152119.GA31396@fling-wing.demos.su> References: <20030624164602.GW7587@garage.freebsd.pl> <20030625135106.GA19868@fling-wing.demos.su> <20030625140518.GA23435@fling-wing.demos.su> <20030625144849.GJ7587@garage.freebsd.pl> <20030625145233.GA28322@fling-wing.demos.su> <20030625150221.GL7587@garage.freebsd.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030625150221.GL7587@garage.freebsd.pl> WWW-Home-Page: http://mitya.pp.ru/ X-PGP-Key: http://mitya.pp.ru/mitya.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Jailed sysvipc implementation. X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:21:22 -0000 On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 05:02:21PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 06:52:33PM +0400, Dmitry Sivachenko wrote: > +> > But you got still *one* memory zones for every jail and main host. > +> > +> Yes, that is exactly what I want. > +> This is similar to separate IP stack for each jail: this is more powerful > +> solution, but more expensive (uses more kernel memory). > > But note that my implementation allocates memory "on demand". This is part of the problem: with single memory zone for all jails, less memory is allocated. With private memory zones, if m jails use IPC, you need to allocate m*M kbytes (for some value of M you consider sufficient for one jail). With one memory zone for all jails, it is enough to allocate N kbytes where M < N < m*M, because every jail will not use all M kbytes at the same time. > If IPC syscall will not be used inside of jail memory will not be allocated. > If think also that this will be trivial to add value to jail struct > that will thell if we want separate IPC memory zones for this jail or not. > > +> Jail is not a true virtual machine. > +> Let's keep it a *light* virtual machine replacement, with single IP stack, > +> one memory zones for all jails and host, etc. > > I think it should be and it isn't now because of implementaion problems. > Am I wrong? Poul? Robert? >