OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [PATCH 0/13] Pid namespaces (OpenVZ view)
Re: [PATCH 0/13] Pid namespaces (OpenVZ view) [message #13396 is a reply to message #13348] Fri, 25 May 2007 13:25 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
serue is currently offline  serue
Messages: 750
Registered: February 2006
Senior Member
Quoting Pavel Emelianov (xemul@openvz.org):
> Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xmission.com):
> >> "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com> writes:
> >>
> >>>> 3. Cleaner logic for namespace migration: with this approach
> >>>> one need to save the virtual pid and let global one change;
> >>>> with Suka's logic this is not clear how to migrate the level
> >>>> 2 namespace (concerning init to be level 0).
> >>> This is a very good point.
> >>>
> >>> How *would* we migrate the pids at the second level?
> >> As long as you don't try and restore pids into the initial pid namespace
> >> it isn't a problem. You just record the pid hierarchy and the pid
> >> for a task in that hierarchy. There really is nothing special going on
> >> that should make migration hard.
> >>
> >> Or did I miss something?
> >
> > Hmm, no, i guess you are right. I was thinking that getting the pid for
> > a process woudl be done purely from userspace, but I guess along with a
> > kernel helper to *set* pids, we could also have a kernel helper to get
> > all pids for all pid namespaces "above" that of the process doing the
> > checkpoint.
>
> So do you agree that if we migrate a VS we need to migrate the whole VS?

I started to respond, then realized you were probably asking something
different than I thought. My original response is below, but here is I
think the answer to your question, which is important because I think
your question might highlight a misunderstanding about the design of
Suka's code.

Let's say a vserver is started, and in there a pidns is started for a
checkpoint/restart job. So let's say we have PID 13 in the root
namespace starting PID 14 in a new namespace. So using (pid, pid_ns) as
the terminology, we havd (13,1) as the parent process, and (14,1)=(1,2)
as the init of the vserver. Let's ignore other tasks inthe vserver, and
just talk about (1402,2) as the init of the checkpoint restart job, so
it is (1402,2)=(1,3). And oh, yeah, (1402,2)=(1,3)=(2309,1).

Now when we want to migrate the vserver, a task in pid_ns 2 will look
for all tasks with pids in pidns 2. That will automatically include all
tasks in pid_ns 3. I think you thought I was asking how we would
include pid_ns 3, and are asking whether it woudl be ok to not migrate
pid_ns 3? (answer: it's irrelevant, all tasks in pid_ns 3 are also in
pid_ns 2 - and in pid_ns 1).

What I was actually asking was, in the same situation, how would the
task in pid_ns 2 doing the checkpoint get the pids in pid_ns 3. So it
sees the task as (1402,2), but needs to also store (1,3) and, on
restart, recreate a task with both those pids.

But I guess it will be pretty simple, and fall into place once we get
c/r semantics started.

thanks,
-serge

[ original response ]

I think that's the reasonable thing for people to do, but I don't think
we should force them to. I.e. there is no reason you shouldn't be able
to take one or two tasks out of a pidns and checkpoint them, and restart
them elsewhere. If it turns out they were talking to a third process
which wasn't checkpointed, well, too bad.

What you are more likely to need is a new clean set of namespaces to
restart in, but again I don't think we should enforce that. So whatever
mechanism we end up doing to implementing "clone_with_pid()", we should
handle -EBUSY correctly.

Anyway, why do you ask? (How does it follow from the conversation?)

I wasn't suggesting that it would be ok to only dump part of the pid
information, rather I was asking how we would do it correctly :)

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Re: [ckrm-tech] [RFC] [PATCH 0/3] Add group fairness to CFS
Next Topic: [RFC][PATCH 0/16] Enable cloning of pid namespace
Goto Forum:
  

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Fri Oct 10 08:31:17 GMT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.09577 seconds
Powered by FUDforum Powered by Virtuozzo Containers