[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121009162925.GA6517@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 18:29:25 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andrey Wagin <avagin@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] pidns: don't zap processes several times
On 10/08, Andrey Wagin wrote:
>
> 2012/10/7 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>:
> >
> > Perhaps we should MAX_PID_NS_LEVEL instead?
>
> Yes, we can.
>
> Could I just define MAX_PID_NS_LEVEL in a code:
> #define MAX_PID_NS_LEVEL ((PAGE_SIZE - offsetof(struct pid, numbers))
> / sizeof(struct upid))
Or even less. But looks reasonable.
> Or should it be added in a config?
Personally I think that "define" is fine, we can add config/sysctl
later if needed.
Hmm. This is off-topic, but...
create_pid_namespace:
unsigned int level = parent_pid_ns->level + 1;
ns->pid_cachep = create_pid_cachep(level + 1);
is it correct? is seems that only one "+ 1" is needed?
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