Re: RFC [patch 13/34] PID Virtualization Define new task_pid api

[Dave Hansen]

On Tue, 2006-01-31 at 20:39 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Yes.  Although there are a few container lifetimes problems with that
> > approach.  Do you want your container alive for a long time after every
> > process using it has exited just because someone has squirrelled away their
> > pid.  While container lifetime issues crop up elsewhere as well PIDs are
> > by far the worst, because it is current safe to store a PID indefinitely 
> > with nothing worse that PID wrap around.
> 
> Are people really expecting to have a huge turn-over on containers? It 
> sounds like this shouldn't be a problem in any normal circumstance: 
> especially if you don't even do the "big hash-table per container" 
> approach, who really cares if a container lives on after the last process 
> exited?

Other than testing, I can't imagine a case when we'd need them created
and destroyed very often.  In fact, one of the biggest cases for needing
checkpoint/restart on a container is a very long-lived processes that is
doing important work.

-- Dave

-
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/