Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: RFC [patch 13/34] PID Virtualization Define new task_pid api | From | Dave Hansen <> | Date | Wed, 01 Feb 2006 08:41:46 -0800 |
| |
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/
| |