[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080717173254.GA20948@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:32:54 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc: Daniel Hokka Zakrisson <daniel@...ac.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] signals: kill(-1) should only signal processes in the same namespace
On 07/17, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>
> Daniel Hokka Zakrisson wrote:
> >
> > The way zap_pid_ns_processes does it is worse, since it signals every
> > thread in the namespace rather than every thread group. So either we walk
>
> It's questionable whether there are more "threads in a pid namespace" than
> "processes in a system".
>
> E.g. on my notebook there are ~110 processes and ~150 threads. So having
> this setup launched in 10 containers you'll have to walk 1100 tasks, while
> zap_pid_ns_processes only 150 ;)
>
> Some real-life example with containers: on one of our servers with 10
> containers serving as git repo, bulding system and some other stuff there
> are ~200 process totally and ~20 threads in each container. See?
>
> I tend to believe that walking threads in a container is cheaper then
> walking processes in a system...
kill_something_info() can't walk threads, think about the realtime signals.
Anyway, I think we should change kill_something_info(-1) to use rcu_read_lock()
instead of tasklist.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists