[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D789B64.9000603@parallels.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:35:32 +0300
From: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pidns: Make pid_max per namespace
On 03/08/2011 02:58 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 11:39:17 +0300
> Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com> wrote:
>
>> Rationale:
>>
>> On x86_64 with big ram people running containers set pid_max on host to
>> large values to be able to launch more containers. At the same time
>> containers running 32-bit software experience problems with large pids - ps
>> calls readdir/stat on proc entries and inode's i_ino happen to be too big
>> for the 32-bit API.
>>
>> Thus, the ability to limit the pid value inside container is required.
>>
>
> This is a behavioural change, isn't it? In current kernels a write to
> /proc/sys/kernel/pid_max will change the max pid on all processes.
> After this change, that write will only affect processes in the current
> namespace. Anyone who was depending on the old behaviour might run
> into problems?
Hardly. If the behavior of some two apps depends on its synchronous change,
these two might want to run in the same pid namespace.
> Also: documentation. Documentation/sysctl/kernel.txt would like an
> update. And perhaps also the pidns documentation which we forgot to
> create :(
OK, I'll fix the existing docs.
Thanks,
Pavel
--
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