[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111113185902.GB4633@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 19:59:02 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
Nathan Lynch <ntl@...ox.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
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
On 11/11, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>
> > Yes, sysctl+clone should be "atomic", but that is all. Does it really
> > hurt? OK, if nothing else, can't you do somthing like
> ...
> Nope, as I said to Tejun, we will most likely not forks children in the depth-first
> order,
But this doesn't matter. I think you misunderstood a bit. You can do
set_last_pid+clone at any time. It doesn't depen on previous clone's.
Unless, of course, the necessary pid_nr was already used, but this is
equally true for CLONE_CHILD_USEPIDS.
> But I don't insist.
You should ;)
> If the CLONE_CHILD_USEPIDS has absolutely no way in the kernel we'll
> have to go the uglier path.
All I think is: we should discuss everything we can before we add the
new API. Probably we need a wider CC.
Yes, personally I can't say I like CLONE_CHILD_USEPIDS very much. But
I agree that sysctl(set_last_pid) (or whatever) is not perfect too.
To me, it has only one but very important (imho) advantage: it is much
simpler and understandable.
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