linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Guillaume Gaudonville <guillaume.gaudonville@6wind.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, serge.hallyn@canonical.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	davem@davemloft.net, cmetcalf@tilera.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH linux-next v2] ns: do not allocate a new nsproxy at each call
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 10:27:39 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5267887B.3090307@6wind.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87iowprsyz.fsf@xmission.com>

On 10/22/2013 09:44 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> To be succint.
>
> Mutation of nsproxy in place was a distraction.
>
> What is crucial to the current operation of the code is
>
> synchronize_rcu();
> put_pid_ns();
> put_net_ns();
> ...
>
> To remove the syncrhonize_rcu we would have to either user call_rcu or
> make certain all of the namespaces have some kind of rcu liveness
> guarantee (which many of them do) and use something like maybe_get_net.
>
> If you are going to pursue this the maybe_get_net direction is my
> preference as that is what we would need if we did not have nsproxy
> and so will be simpler overall.
>
> Hmm.  On the side of simple it may be appropriate to revisit the patch
> that started using rcu protection for nsproxy.   I doesn't look like
> the original reasons for nsproxy being rcu protected exist any more,
> so reverting to task_lock protect may be enough..
>
> And it would result in faster/simpler code that only slows down when we
> perform a remote access, which should be far from common.
Ok, let me think a bit of these new directions and I'll come back to you,
thanks for your help guys.
> commit cf7b708c8d1d7a27736771bcf4c457b332b0f818
> Author: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>
> Date:   Thu Oct 18 23:39:54 2007 -0700
>
>      Make access to task's nsproxy lighter
>      
>      When someone wants to deal with some other taks's namespaces it has to lock
>      the task and then to get the desired namespace if the one exists.  This is
>      slow on read-only paths and may be impossible in some cases.
>      
>      E.g.  Oleg recently noticed a race between unshare() and the (sent for
>      review in cgroups) pid namespaces - when the task notifies the parent it
>      has to know the parent's namespace, but taking the task_lock() is
>      impossible there - the code is under write locked tasklist lock.
>      
>      On the other hand switching the namespace on task (daemonize) and releasing
>      the namespace (after the last task exit) is rather rare operation and we
>      can sacrifice its speed to solve the issues above.
>      
>      The access to other task namespaces is proposed to be performed
>      like this:
>      
>           rcu_read_lock();
>           nsproxy = task_nsproxy(tsk);
>           if (nsproxy != NULL) {
>                   / *
>                     * work with the namespaces here
>                     * e.g. get the reference on one of them
>                     * /
>           } / *
>               * NULL task_nsproxy() means that this task is
>               * almost dead (zombie)
>               * /
>           rcu_read_unlock();
>      
>      This patch has passed the review by Eric and Oleg :) and,
>      of course, tested.
>
>
> Eric


      parent reply	other threads:[~2013-10-23  8:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-10-15 17:35 [RFC PATCH linux-next] ns: do not allocate a new nsproxy at each call Guillaume Gaudonville
2013-10-15 18:40 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-10-16  8:48   ` Guillaume Gaudonville
2013-10-16 19:42     ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-10-18 14:46       ` [RFC PATCH linux-next v2] " Guillaume Gaudonville
2013-10-18 22:34         ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-10-22 15:52           ` Guillaume Gaudonville
2013-10-22 16:53             ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-10-22 18:47               ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-10-22 19:44                 ` Eric W. Biederman
2013-10-22 21:42                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2013-10-23  8:27                   ` Guillaume Gaudonville [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5267887B.3090307@6wind.com \
    --to=guillaume.gaudonville@6wind.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cmetcalf@tilera.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=serge.hallyn@canonical.com \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).