sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx writes: > From: Cedric Le Goater <clg@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: [RFC][PATCH 06/14] Populate pid_nrs list with entry for init-pid-ns > > Create/destroy the pid->pid_nrs list - when allocating/freeing a struct pid. > The pid_nrs list contains just a single struct pid_nr for now, (corresponding > to init-pid-ns). > > To enable finding a process based on any of its pid_t values, replace the > use struct pid_nr, rather than struct pid, in the pid_hash table. > > Finally, reimplement find_pid() and pid_nr() based on the pid_nrs list. > > Changelog: > - [Serge Hallyn's comment]: Add comments on what pid->lock protects > and that pid->nr will eventually go away. > - [Eric Biederman and containers list comments]: Reworked patches > to drop support for unsharing pid namespace and to replace > struct pid with struct pid_nr in the pid_hash table. > > Signed-off-by: Cedric Le Goater <clg@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > include/linux/pid.h | 9 ------ > kernel/pid.c | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ > 2 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) > > @@ -242,50 +247,70 @@ struct pid_nr *alloc_pid_nr(struct pid_n > */ > pid_nr->pid = pid; > > + spin_lock_irq(&pidmap_lock); > + hlist_add_head_rcu(&pid_nr->pid_chain, &pid_hash[pid_hashfn(nr)]); > + spin_unlock_irq(&pidmap_lock); > + Hmm. I think we really need to hash in some of the bits of the pid_namespace so processes with identical pids don't get put on the same hash chain. It isn't critical but it is a good idea. Eric _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
