> On Oct 16, 2020, at 2:54 PM, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 04:20:40PM +0800, Ka-Cheong Poon wrote: >> On 10/9/20 11:34 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >> >>> Yes, because namespaces are fundamentally supposed to be anchored in >>> the processes inside the namespace. >>> >>> Having the kernel jump in and start opening holes as soon as a >>> namespace is created is just wrong. >>> >>> At a bare minimum the listener should not exist until something in the >>> namespace is willing to work with RDS. >> >> >> As I mentioned in a previous email, starting is not the problem. It >> is the problem of deleting a namespace. > > Starting and ending are symmetric. When the last thing inside the > namespace stops needing RDS then RDS should close down the cm_id's. Unfortunately, cluster heartbeat requires the RDS listener endpoint to continue after the last RDS user goes away, if the container continues to exist. IMO having an explicit RDS start-up and shutdown apart from namespace creation and deletion is a cleaner approach. On a multi-tenant system with many containers, some of those containers will want RDS listeners and some will not. RDS should not assume that every net namespace needs or wants to have a listener. -- Chuck Lever
