On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 01:28:00PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote: > 20.08.2012 20:58, J. Bruce Fields пишет: > >On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 07:11:00PM +0400, Stanislav Kinsbursky wrote: > >>Currently, when you call kthread_create(), you add new job to > >>kthreadd queue. Kthreadd is unique, starts right after init and > >>lives in global initial environment. So, any kthread inherits > >>namespaces from it. > >>Of course, we can start one kthread per environment and change it's > >>root or even network namespace in kthread function. But pid > >>namespace of this kthread will remain global. > > > >OK. But the current implementation will leave all the server threads in > >the initial pid namespace, too. > > > >>It looks like not a big problem, when we shutdown kthread by some > >>variable. But what about killable nfsd kthreads? > > > >And we're stuck with that problem either way too, aren't we? > > > > Yes, we are. But at least we are avoiding patching of task subsystem. > > >>1) We can't kill them from nested pid namespace. > >>2) How we will differ nfsd kthreads in initial pid namespace? > > > >I have to admit for my purposes I don't care too much about pid > >namespaces or about signalling server threads. It'd be nice to get > >those things right but it wouldn't bother me that much not to. > > > >Another stupid idea: can we do our own implementation of something like > >kthreadd just for the purpose of starting rpc server threads? It > >doesn't seem that complicated. > > > > Gm... > This idea is not stupid. If I understand you right, you suggest to > implement a service per network namespace (i.e. not only data, but > also threads)? Some way or another, yes, entirely separate threads for the different namespaces would be clearer, I think. And if we can't get them in the right pid namespaces, I'm not sure I care. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
