Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
> Nadia Derbey wrote:
> 
>>Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>>
>>>Nadia.Derbey@bull.net wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>@@ -122,14 +122,26 @@ static void free_pidmap(struct upid *upi
>>>>	atomic_inc(&map->nr_free);
>>>>}
>>>>
>>>>-static int alloc_pidmap(struct pid_namespace *pid_ns)
>>>>+static int alloc_pidmap(struct pid_namespace *pid_ns, struct pid_list *pid_l,
>>>>+			int level)
>>>>{
>>>>	int i, offset, max_scan, pid, last = pid_ns->last_pid;
>>>>	struct pidmap *map;
>>>>
>>>>-	pid = last + 1;
>>>>-	if (pid >= pid_max)
>>>>-		pid = RESERVED_PIDS;
>>>>+	if (!pid_l) {
>>>>+		pid = last + 1;
>>>>+		if (pid >= pid_max)
>>>>+			pid = RESERVED_PIDS;
>>>>+	} else {
>>>>+		/*
>>>>+		 * There's a target pid, so use it instead
>>>>+		 */
>>>>+		BUG_ON(level < 0);
>>>>+		pid = PID_AT(pid_l, level);
>>>>+		if (pid >= pid_max)
>>>>+			return -EINVAL;
>>>>+	}
>>>>+
>>>>	offset = pid & BITS_PER_PAGE_MASK;
>>>>	map = &pid_ns->pidmap[pid/BITS_PER_PAGE];
>>>>	max_scan = (pid_max + BITS_PER_PAGE - 1)/BITS_PER_PAGE - !offset;
>>>>@@ -153,9 +165,16 @@ static int alloc_pidmap(struct pid_names
>>>>			do {
>>>>				if (!test_and_set_bit(offset, map->page)) {
>>>>					atomic_dec(&map->nr_free);
>>>>-					pid_ns->last_pid = pid;
>>>>+					if (!pid_l)
>>>>+						pid_ns->last_pid = pid;
>>>>+					else
>>>>+						pid_ns->last_pid = max(last,
>>>>+									pid);
>>>>					return pid;
>>>>				}
>>>>+				if (pid_l)
>>>>+					/* Target pid is already in use */
>>>>+					return -EBUSY;
>>>>				offset = find_next_offset(map, offset);
>>>>				pid = mk_pid(pid_ns, map, offset);
>>>>			/*
>>>>@@ -179,7 +198,7 @@ static int alloc_pidmap(struct pid_names
>>>>		}
>>>>		pid = mk_pid(pid_ns, map, offset);
>>>>	}
>>>>-	return -1;
>>>>+	return -ENOMEM;
>>>>}
>>>>
>>>>int next_pidmap(struct pid_namespace *pid_ns, int last)
>>>
>>>As fas as this particular piece of code is concerned this all can 
>>>be shrunk down to
>>>
>>>static int set_vpidmap(struct pid_namespace *ns, int pid)
>>>{
>>>        int offset;
>>>        pidmap_t *map;
>>>
>>>        offset = pid & BITS_PER_PAGE_MASK;
>>>        map = ns->pidmap + vpid / BITS_PER_PAGE;
>>>
>>>        if (unlikely(alloc_pidmap_page(map)))
>>>                return -ENOMEM;
>>>
>>>        if (test_and_set_bit(offset, map->page))
>>>                return -EEXIST;
>>>
>>>        atomic_dec(&map->nr_free);
>>>        return pid;
>>>}
>>>
>>>where the alloc_pidmap_page is a consolidated part of code from alloc_pidmap.
>>>
>>>And I'm scared of what the alloc_pid is going to become.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It's true that I made alloc_pid() become uggly, but this patchset was 
>>more intended to continue a discussion.
>>
>>What we could do is the following (not compiled, not tested...):
>>
>>struct pid *alloc_pid(struct pid_namespace *ns)
>>{
>>         struct pid *pid;
>>         enum pid_type type;
>>         int i, nr;
>>         struct pid_namespace *tmp;
>>         struct upid *upid;
>>
>>         pid = kmem_cache_alloc(ns->pid_cachep, GFP_KERNEL);
>>         if (!pid) {
>>                 pid = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>>                 goto out;
>>         }
>>
>>         tmp = ns;
>>         i = ns->level;
>>
>>         if (current->next_id && (current->next_id->flag & SYS_ID_PID)) {
>>                 tmp = set_predefined_pids(ns,
>>                               current->next_id->pid_ids);
>>                 if (IS_ERR(tmp)) {
>>                         nr = PTR_ERR(tmp);
>>                         goto out_free;
>>                 }
>>         }
>>
>>         /*
>>          * Let the lower levels upid nrs be automatically allocated
>>          */
>>         for ( ; i >= 0; i--) {
>>                 nr = alloc_pidmap(tmp, NULL, -1);
>>                 if (nr < 0)
>>                         goto out_free;
>>....
>>
>>which would only add a test and a function call to alloc_pid() ==> more 
>>readable.
>>with set_predefined_pids defined as follows (still not compiled, not 
>>tested, ...):
>>
>>struct pid_namespace *set_predefined_pids(struct pid_namespace *ns,
>>                                         struct pid_list *pid_l)
>>{
>>         int rel_level;
>>
>>         BUG_ON(!pid_l);
>>
>>         rel_level = pid_l->npids - 1;
>>         if (rel_level > ns->level)
>>                 return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>
>>         /*
>>          * Use the predefined upid nrs for levels ns->level down to
>>          * ns->level - rel_level
>>          */
>>         for ( ; rel_level >= 0; i--, rel_level--) {
>>                 nr = alloc_pidmap(tmp, pid_l, rel_level);
>>                 if (nr < 0)
>>                         return ERR_PTR(nr);
>>
>>                 pid->numbers[i].nr = nr;
>>                 pid->numbers[i].ns = tmp;
>>                 tmp = tmp->parent;
>>         }
>>
>>         current->next_id->flag &= ~SYS_ID_PID;
>>         pids_free(pid_l);
>>         current->next_id->pid_ids = NULL;
>>
>>         return tmp;
>>}
>>
>>
>>Don't you think that mixing this with your 1st proposal (the 
>>set_vpidmap() one), would make things look better?
> 
> 
> I'd prefer seeing
> 
> --- a/kernel/pid.c
> +++ b/kernel/pid.c
> @@ -247,7 +247,7 @@ struct pid *alloc_pid(struct pid_namespace *ns)
>  {
>         struct pid *pid;
>         enum pid_type type;
> -       int i, nr;
> +       int i, nr, req_nr;
>         struct pid_namespace *tmp;
>         struct upid *upid;
>  
> @@ -257,7 +257,11 @@ struct pid *alloc_pid(struct pid_namespace *ns)
>  
>         tmp = ns;
>         for (i = ns->level; i >= 0; i--) {
> -               nr = alloc_pidmap(tmp);
> +               req_nr = get_required_pidnr(ns, i);
> +               if (req_nr > 0)
> +                       nr = set_pidmap(tmp, req_nr);
> +               else
> +                       nr = alloc_pidmap(tmp);
>                 if (nr < 0)
>                         goto out_free;
>  
> 
> in alloc_pid() and not much than that.
> 
> 

But doing this in the existing path, we are unconditionally adding for 
each level:
. a call to get_required_pidnr()
. a test (on req_nr value)

while with what I proposed in my previous mail I'm adding only 1 test to 
the existing alloc_pid() path. But I agree with that it may be still not 
perfect.

Or may be I missed something?

Regards,
Nadia
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers