Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] fork: Add the ability to create tasks withgiven pids

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 11/25, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>
> The proposal is to implement the PR_RESERVE_PID prctl which allocates and puts a
> pid on the current. The subsequent fork() uses this pid,

Oh. This is subjective, yes, but this doesn't clean to me.

Amd why?? On the running system PR_RESERVE_PID can obviously fail anyway.
It only helps to avoid the race with another fork.

>  * one more field on struct pid is OK, since it size doesn't change (32 bit level is
>    anyway not required, it's OK to reduce on down to 16 bits)

Even if sizeof is the same, the new member and the code which plays
with ->flags doesn't make the things better ;)

>  * yes, we have +1 member on task_struct :(

Yes, and this task_struct->rsv_pid acts as implicit parameter for the
next clone(). Doesn't look very nice to me. Plus the code complications.

> Oleg, Tejun, do you agree with such an approach?

If set_last_pid doesn't work, I'd prefer CLONE_CHILD_USEPIDS.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/