Re: How much of a mess does OpenVZ make? ;) Was: What can OpenVZ do?
flat view
From: Cedric Le Goater <hidden>
Date: 2009-03-13 15:47:50
Also in:
linux-mm, lkml
No, what you're suggesting does not suffice.
probably. I'm still trying to understand what you mean below :) Man, I hate these hierarchicals pid_ns. one level would have been enough, just one vpid attribute in 'struct pid*'
Call (5591,3,1) the task knows as 5591 in the init_pid_ns, 3 in a child pid ns, and 1 in grandchild pid_ns created from there. Now assume we are checkpointing tasks T1=(5592,1), and T2=(5594,3,1). We don't care about the first number in the tuples, so they will be random numbers after the recreate.
yes.
But we do care about the second numbers.
yes very much and we need a way set these numbers in alloc_pid()
But specifying CLONE_NEWPID while recreating the process tree in userspace does not allow you to specify the 3 in (5594,3,1).
I haven't looked closely at hierarchical pid namespaces but as we're using a an array of pid indexed but the pidns level, i don't see why it shouldn't be possible. you might be right. anyway, I think that some CLONE_NEW* should be forbidden. Daniel should send soon a little patch for the ns_cgroup restricting the clone flags being used in a container. Cheers, C.
Or are you suggesting that you'll do a dummy clone of (5594,2) so that the next clone(CLONE_NEWPID) will be expected to be (5594,3,1)? -serge
-- 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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>