[PATCH][BUGFIX] cgroups: fix pid namespace bug

Paul Menage menage at google.com
Thu Jul 2 08:43:57 PDT 2009

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Serge E. Hallyn<serue at us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Quoting Li Zefan (lizf at cn.fujitsu.com):
>> Paul Menage wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Li Zefan<lizf at cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> >> But I guess we are going to fix the bug for 2.6.31? So is it ok to
>> >> merge a new feature 'cgroup.procs' together into 2.6.31?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Does this bug really need to be fixed for 2.6.31? I didn't think that
>> > the namespace support in mainline was robust enough yet for people to
>> > use them for virtual servers in production environments.
> I don't know where the bar is for 'production environments', but I'd
> have to claim that pid namespaces are there...

Well, pid namespaces are marked as experimental, as are user
namespaces (and were described as "very incomplete" a few months
back). Pid namespaces are useful for process migration (which is still
under development) or virtual servers (for which user namespaces are
pretty much essential). So I'm not sure quite what you'd use pid
namespaces for yet.


More information about the Containers mailing list