> -----Original Message----- > From: containers-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > On 05/29/2014 09:59 AM, Vasily Kulikov wrote: > > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 23:27 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > >> On 05/28/2014 10:28 PM, Vasily Kulikov wrote: > >>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 16:44 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > >>> It will be simplier > >>> to parse the file -- if 'ns_ids' file contains some ID then this ID for > >>> every ns can be obtained regardless of the specific ID name (SID, PID, > >>> PGID, etc.). > >> > >> True, but given a task PID how to determine which pid namespaces it lives in > >> to get the idea of how PIDs map to each other? Maybe we need some explicit > >> API for converting (ID, NS1, NS2) into (ID)? > > > > AFAIU the idea of the patch is to add a new debugging information which > > can be trivially obtained via 'cat /proc/...': > > I agree, but this ability will be very useful by checkpoint-restore project > too and I'd really appreciate if the API we have for that would be scalable > enough. Per-task proc file works for me, but how about sid-s and pgid-s? > Yes, a new syscall is very useful, but it should be another task. Just for Pids, I think proc file is good enough. > > ] We need a direct method of getting the pid inside containers. > > ] If some issues occurred inside container guest, host user > > ] could not know which process is in trouble just by guest pid: > > ] the users of container guest only knew the pid inside containers. > > ] This will bring obstacle for trouble shooting. > > > > A new syscall might complicate trouble shooting by admin. > > Pure syscall -- yes. What if we teach the ps and top utilities to show additional > info? I think that would help. > Thanks, - Chen _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
