Messages in this thread | | | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Date | Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:13:29 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH][BUGFIX] cgroups: fix pid namespace bug |
| |
Paul Menage <menage@google.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Serge E. Hallyn<serue@us.ibm.com> wrote: >> Quoting Li Zefan (lizf@cn.fujitsu.com): >>> Paul Menage wrote: >>> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Li Zefan<lizf@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: >>> >> But I guess we are going to fix the bug for 2.6.31? So is it ok to >>> >> merge a new feature 'cgroup.procs' together into 2.6.31? >>> >> >>> > >>> > Does this bug really need to be fixed for 2.6.31? I didn't think that >>> > the namespace support in mainline was robust enough yet for people to >>> > use them for virtual servers in production environments. >> >> I don't know where the bar is for 'production environments', but I'd >> have to claim that pid namespaces are there... > > Well, pid namespaces are marked as experimental, as are user > namespaces (and were described as "very incomplete" a few months > back). Pid namespaces are useful for process migration (which is still > under development) or virtual servers (for which user namespaces are > pretty much essential). So I'm not sure quite what you'd use pid > namespaces for yet.
I have pid namespaces in pretty heavy use already.
Inescapable process groups are quite handy.
Eric
| |