[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 7/7] containers (V7): Container interface to nsproxy subsystem
    On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 11:48:57PM -0700, Paul Menage wrote:
    > >rcfs_task_count will essentially return number of tasks pointing to A1
    > >thr' their nsproxy->ctlr_data[BC_ID].
    > One small issue with the (last posted) version of your patch is that
    > it doesn't take into account the refcounts from the directories
    > themselves

    You mean dentry->d_fsdata pointing to nsproxy should take a ref count on
    nsproxy? afaics it is not needed as long as you first drop the dentry
    before freeing associated nsproxy.

    > - I think you probably need to subtract one for each active
    > subsystem.

    I don't understand this.

    > I don't think that's a reasonable assumption. A task can have
    > thousands of file handles open - having to scan and move every file
    > that the task has open would make a move operation incredibly
    > expensive.
    > Additionally, tasks can share many of those file handles
    > with other tasks. So what happens if one task that has a file open
    > moves out of the container, but another stays behind? It's cleaner and
    > more efficient, and conceptually desirable, IMO, just to keep the file
    > associated with the container.

    I don't have a authoritative view here on whether open file count should
    be migrated or not, but from a layman perspective consider this:

    - Task T1 is in Container C1, whose max open files can be 100
    - T1 opens all of those 100 files
    - T1 migrates to Container C2, but its open file count is not
    - T2 is migrated to container C1 and tries opening a file but is
    denied. T2 looks for "who is in my container who has opened all
    files" and doesn't find anyone.

    Isn't that a bit abnormal from an end-user pov?

    > >Why refcount 3? I can only be 1 (from T) ..
    > Plus the refcounts from the two filesystem roots.

    Filesystem root dentry's are special case. They will point to
    init_nsproxy which is never deleted and hence they need not add
    additional ref counts.

    For other directories created, say H1/foo, foo's dentry will point to N1
    but need not take additional refcount. N1 won't be deleted w/o dropping
    foo's dentry first. I think this is very similar to cpuset case, where
    dentry->d_fsdata = cs doesnt take additional ref counts on cpuset.

    > >The object was created by the task, so I would expect it should get
    > >migrated too to the new task's context (which should be true in case of
    > >f_bc atleast?). Can you give a practical example where you want to
    > >migrate the task and not the object it created?
    > I gave one above, for files; others could include pages (do you want
    > to have to migrate every page when a task switches container? what
    > about shared pages?)
    > Obviously this fundamental difference of opinion means that we're
    > going to end up disagreeing on whether the scenario I presented is a
    > problem or not ...

    Again I am not a VM expert to say whether pages should get migrated or
    not. But coming to the impact of this discussion on xxx_rmdir() ..

    > The problem with that is that (given the assumption that some
    > subsystems might not want to migrate objects) you can then end up with
    > a subsystem state object that has refcounts on it from active objects
    > like files, but which is unreachable via any container filesystem
    > mechanism. Better IMO to be able to fail the rmdir() in that situation
    > so that the subsystem object remains accessible (so you can see where
    > the resources are being used up).

    I agree we shouldn't delete a dir going by just the task count. How abt
    a (optional) ->can_destroy callback which will return -EBUSY if additional
    non-task objects are pointing to a subsyste's resource object?

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-04-05 10:45    [W:0.025 / U:5.040 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site