Re: [RFC][PATCH 04/20] pspace: Allow multiple instaces of the processid namespace
From: Kirill Korotaev
Date: Wed Feb 15 2006 - 07:05:01 EST
the problem is that you do read/write for synchronization of other
operations (fork/pspace leader die).
memory barrier doesn't help. you really need to think about.
Except for instances where you need an atomic read/modify/write the
only primitives you have are reads, writes and barriers.
I have all of the correct reads and writes therefore the only thing
that could help are barriers if the logic is otherwise sane.
i.e. you try to make a serialization, you see? It doesn't work this way.
This exchange seems to have a hostile and not a cooperative tone soEric, I think it turned this way because you started pointing to our
bugs in VPIDs, while having lots of own and not working code.
I will finish the investigation and bug fixing elsewhere.
I can point you another _really_ disastrous bugs in your IPC and
networking virtualization. But discussing bugs is not want I want, you
see? I want us to make some solution suatable for all the parties.
And while you have not working solution it is hard to discuss whether it
is good or not, whether it is beatutiful or not. It is incomplete and
doesn't work. So many statements that one solution is better than
another are not valid.
And we are too cycled on PIDs. Why? I think this is the most minor
feature which can easily live out of mainstream if needed, while
virtualization is the main goal.
I also don't understand why you are eager to introduce new sys calls
like pkill(path_to_process), but is trying to use waitpid() for pspace
die notifications? Maybe it is simply better to introduce container
specific syscalls which should be clean and tidy, instead of messing
things up with clone()/waitpid() and so on? The more simple code we
have, the better it is for all of us.
If possible keep posting your patches. I would even ask you to add me to
CC always. You are doing a really good job and discussion solutions is
the only possible way to push something to mainstream I suppose.
I would also be happy to arrange a meeting with the interested parties,
since talking eye to eye can be much more productive.
I expect that there might be a few more issues like this. My onlyTo some extent yes.
expectation was that the code was complete enough to discuss semantics
and kernel mechanisms for creating a namespaces, and the code has
successfully served that purpose.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/