lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: RFC [patch 13/34] PID Virtualization Define new task_pid api
From
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-02-01 17:44    [W:0.243 / U:0.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site