VFS ROADMAP (and vfs01.patch stage 1 available for testing)

Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai asmodai at wxs.nl
Mon Aug 16 22:40:57 PDT 2004

-On [20040817 07:12], Matthew Dillon (dillon at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>    Well, the intent isn't really to emulate a kernel within a kernel.  It's
>    more a matter of design.  Either we encapsulate all the kernel data
>    associated with a cluster node in a structure and then refer to it via
>    that structure, sort of like how parts of a jail work now,  or we
>    compile a subset of the kernel into a KLD and use kernel globals 
>    as per normal (but in actuality they would be private variables 
>    within the KLD).

I guess part of this is solving the kernel bound/bootstrapped to one CPU
issue, no?  Right now if you have a SMP box the kernel always gets bound to
CPU #0, if CPU 0 + n /\ n > 0 fails the kernel can continue to run, minus
some processes which were bound to any of the other CPUs.  However, if CPU
#0 dies you loose the box.

>    The biggest advantage of the KLD methodology is that there is no way
>    to accidently (both from a software/compilation viewpoint and from a 
>    runtime viewpoint) access information that doesn't belong to the cluster
>    node.  The only hooks the cluster node would have to the real kernel
>    would be to the LWKT subsystems (LWKT scheduler, slab allocator,
>    certain block devices, and VM).  So, for example, the cluster node
>    would have its own private user process scheduler, it's own protocol 
>    stacks, it's own (virtual) network interfaces, its own filesystems,
>    its own buffer cache, its own sysctl set, etc.

Sounds logical.

Rendering clusters would love a simple set-up like the one you proposed.

Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(at)wxs.nl> / asmodai / kita no mono
Free Tibet! http://www.savetibet.org/ | http://www.tibet.nu/
http://www.tendra.org/   | http://www.in-nomine.org/
Sorrow paid for valour is too much to recall...

More information about the Kernel mailing list