On 07/16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Oleg Nesterov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > | > | Could you please give more details why we need this change? > > Well, with multiple pid namespaces, we may need to allocate a new > 'struct pid_namespace' if the CLONE_NEWPID flag is specified. And > as a part of initializing this pid_namespace, we need the 'task_struct' > that will be the reaper of the new pid namespace. > > And this task_struct is allocated in copy_process(). So we could > still alloc_pid() in do_fork(), as we are doing currently and set > the reaper of the new pid_namespace later in copy_process(). But > that seemed to complicate error handling and add checks again in > copy_process() for the CLONE_NEWPID.
OK, thanks. > > | Even if we really need this, can't we do these checks in copy_process() ? > > We could and I did have a check in copy_process() in one of my earlier > versions to Containers@ list. We thought it cluttered copy_process() a > bit. Yes, but having the "pid == &init_struct_pid" in free_pid() is imho worse, > container_exit(p, container_callbacks_done); > delayacct_tsk_free(p); > + free_pid(pid); > +bad_fork_put_binfmt_module: > [...snip...] > @@ -206,6 +206,10 @@ fastcall void free_pid(struct pid *pid) > /* We can be called with write_lock_irq(&tasklist_lock) held */ > unsigned long flags; > > + /* check this here to keep copy_process() cleaner */ > + if (unlikely(pid == &init_struct_pid)) > + return; > + Wouldn't it better if copy_process()'s error path does if (pid != &init_struct_pid) free_pid(pid); instead? OK, "cleaner" is a matter of taste, but from the perfomance POV this would be better, even if not noticable. Oleg. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/