Date:	Tue, 22 Oct 2013 14:42:32 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	Guillaume Gaudonville <guillaume.gaudonville@...nd.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, serge.hallyn@...onical.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	davem@...emloft.net, cmetcalf@...era.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH linux-next v2] ns: do not allocate a new nsproxy at
 each call

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:44:20PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 
> To be succint.
> 
> Mutation of nsproxy in place was a distraction.
> 
> What is crucial to the current operation of the code is
> 
> synchronize_rcu();
> put_pid_ns();
> put_net_ns();
> ...
> 
> To remove the syncrhonize_rcu we would have to either user call_rcu or
> make certain all of the namespaces have some kind of rcu liveness
> guarantee (which many of them do) and use something like maybe_get_net.

You beat me to the call_rcu() suggestion.  If the callback needs to
do something that might sleep, the usual trick is a workqueue scheduled
from the RCU callback.

> If you are going to pursue this the maybe_get_net direction is my
> preference as that is what we would need if we did not have nsproxy
> and so will be simpler overall.
> 
> Hmm.  On the side of simple it may be appropriate to revisit the patch
> that started using rcu protection for nsproxy.   I doesn't look like
> the original reasons for nsproxy being rcu protected exist any more,
> so reverting to task_lock protect may be enough..
> 
> And it would result in faster/simpler code that only slows down when we
> perform a remote access, which should be far from common.

That can be a good option, also.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

> commit cf7b708c8d1d7a27736771bcf4c457b332b0f818
> Author: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
> Date:   Thu Oct 18 23:39:54 2007 -0700
> 
>     Make access to task's nsproxy lighter
>     
>     When someone wants to deal with some other taks's namespaces it has to lock
>     the task and then to get the desired namespace if the one exists.  This is
>     slow on read-only paths and may be impossible in some cases.
>     
>     E.g.  Oleg recently noticed a race between unshare() and the (sent for
>     review in cgroups) pid namespaces - when the task notifies the parent it
>     has to know the parent's namespace, but taking the task_lock() is
>     impossible there - the code is under write locked tasklist lock.
>     
>     On the other hand switching the namespace on task (daemonize) and releasing
>     the namespace (after the last task exit) is rather rare operation and we
>     can sacrifice its speed to solve the issues above.
>     
>     The access to other task namespaces is proposed to be performed
>     like this:
>     
>          rcu_read_lock();
>          nsproxy = task_nsproxy(tsk);
>          if (nsproxy != NULL) {
>                  / *
>                    * work with the namespaces here
>                    * e.g. get the reference on one of them
>                    * /
>          } / *
>              * NULL task_nsproxy() means that this task is
>              * almost dead (zombie)
>              * /
>          rcu_read_unlock();
>     
>     This patch has passed the review by Eric and Oleg :) and,
>     of course, tested.
> 
> 
> Eric
> 

--
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