Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 08:32:59AM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:45:56AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 09:43:40AM +0200, peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 06:44:47PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >> >> > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 07:34:00PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: >> >> > > > The only remaining function callable outside of kernel/fork.c is >> >> > > > _do_fork(). It doesn't really follow the naming of kernel-internal >> >> > > > syscall helpers as Christoph righly pointed out. Switch all callers and >> >> > > > references to kernel_clone() and remove _do_fork() once and for all. >> >> > > >> >> > > My only concern is around return type. long, int, pid_t ... can we >> >> > > choose one and stick to it? pid_t is probably the right return type >> >> > > within the kernel, despite the return type of clone3(). It'll save us >> >> > > some work if we ever go through the hassle of growing pid_t beyond 31-bit. >> >> > >> >> > We have at least the futex ABI restricting PID space to 30 bits. >> >> >> >> Ok, looking into kernel/futex.c I see >> >> >> >> pid_t pid = uval & FUTEX_TID_MASK; >> >> >> >> which is probably what this referes to and /proc/sys/kernel/threads-max >> >> is restricted to FUTEX_TID_MASK. >> >> >> >> Afaict, that doesn't block switching kernel_clone() to return pid_t. It >> >> can't create anything > FUTEX_TID_MASK anyway without yelling EAGAIN at >> >> userspace. But it means that _if_ we were to change the size of pid_t >> >> we'd likely need a new futex API. >> > >> > Yes, there would be a lot of work to do to increase the size of pid_t. >> > I'd just like to not do anything to make that harder _now_. Stick to >> > using pid_t within the kernel. >> >> Just so people are aware. If you look in include/linux/threads.h you >> can see that the maximum value of PID_MAX_LIMIT limits pids to 22 bits. >> >> Further the design decisions of pids keeps us densly using pids. So I >> expect it will be a while before we even come close to using 30 bits of >> pid space. > > Also because it's simply annoying to have to type really large pid > numbers on the shell. Yes yes, that's a very privileged > developer-centric complaint but it matters when you have to do a quick > kill -9. Chromebook users obviously won't care about how large their > pids are for sure. Actually that is one of the reasons (possibly the primary reason) that we have chosen to keep pid numbers dense. There may be fewer users of unix shells then their used to be, and we may now have pidfds. But until people stop using pids in shells it is a very valid reason to keep them densly packed. > Tbf, related to discussions last year, systemd now actually raises the > default limit from ~33000 to 4194304. Which seems like an ok compromise. Intereseting. I had not heard of that. That seems a strange choice for systemd rather than a system administrator to make. Of course any design decision that requires manual intervention to get large systems to work is probably a bad one. Eric
