[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111125162220.GA17173@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:22:20 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Pedro Alves <pedro@...esourcery.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
James Bottomley <jbottomley@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] fork: Add the ability to create tasks with
given pids
On 11/25, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>
> The proposal is to implement the PR_RESERVE_PID prctl which allocates and puts a
> pid on the current. The subsequent fork() uses this pid,
Oh. This is subjective, yes, but this doesn't clean to me.
Amd why?? On the running system PR_RESERVE_PID can obviously fail anyway.
It only helps to avoid the race with another fork.
> * one more field on struct pid is OK, since it size doesn't change (32 bit level is
> anyway not required, it's OK to reduce on down to 16 bits)
Even if sizeof is the same, the new member and the code which plays
with ->flags doesn't make the things better ;)
> * yes, we have +1 member on task_struct :(
Yes, and this task_struct->rsv_pid acts as implicit parameter for the
next clone(). Doesn't look very nice to me. Plus the code complications.
> Oleg, Tejun, do you agree with such an approach?
If set_last_pid doesn't work, I'd prefer CLONE_CHILD_USEPIDS.
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