[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:06:09 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
Nathan Lynch <ntl@...ox.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Serge Hallyn <serue@...ibm.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <dlezcano@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] pids: Make it possible to clone tasks with given pids
Hello,
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com> wrote:
>> Hmm. It seems, we can make a simpler patch to achieve the (roughly)
>> same effect. Without touching copy_process/alloc_pid paths. What if
>> we simply add PR_SET_LAST_PID? (or something else).
>>
>> In this case the new init (created normally) read the pids from image
>> file and does prcrl(PR_SET_LAST_PID, pid-1) before the next fork.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> This will make it impossible to fork() children on restore in parallel. And
> I don't want to lose this ability :(
It's highly unlikely that the ability to fork in parallel would
contribute to any meaningful speedup. That is not the critical path by
*far* and I don't think it's worth optimizing for. Forking in serial
and restoring the rest of states in parallel should be enough.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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