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
prev 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).