Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161101AbWBAQmN (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Feb 2006 11:42:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161102AbWBAQmM (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Feb 2006 11:42:12 -0500 Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.146]:14723 "EHLO e6.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161101AbWBAQmK (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Feb 2006 11:42:10 -0500 Subject: Re: RFC [patch 13/34] PID Virtualization Define new task_pid api From: Dave Hansen To: Linus Torvalds Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , Hubertus Franke , Greg KH , Alan Cox , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Arjan van de Ven , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Cedric Le Goater In-Reply-To: References: <20060117143258.150807000@sergelap> <20060117143326.283450000@sergelap> <1137511972.3005.33.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20060117155600.GF20632@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <1137513818.14135.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1137518714.5526.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060118045518.GB7292@kroah.com> <1137601395.7850.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> <43D14578.6060801@watson.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 08:41:46 -0800 Message-Id: <1138812107.6424.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1334 Lines: 27 On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 20:39 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Yes. Although there are a few container lifetimes problems with that > > approach. Do you want your container alive for a long time after every > > process using it has exited just because someone has squirrelled away their > > pid. While container lifetime issues crop up elsewhere as well PIDs are > > by far the worst, because it is current safe to store a PID indefinitely > > with nothing worse that PID wrap around. > > Are people really expecting to have a huge turn-over on containers? It > sounds like this shouldn't be a problem in any normal circumstance: > especially if you don't even do the "big hash-table per container" > approach, who really cares if a container lives on after the last process > exited? Other than testing, I can't imagine a case when we'd need them created and destroyed very often. In fact, one of the biggest cases for needing checkpoint/restart on a container is a very long-lived processes that is doing important work. -- Dave - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/