On Wednesday 04 January 2017 02:34 PM, Krister Johansen wrote:
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 04:57:54PM +0530, Hari Bathini wrote:
> On Thursday 29 December 2016 07:11 AM, Krister Johansen wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:06:55AM +0530, Hari Bathini wrote:
>>> This patch-set overcomes this limitation by using cgroup identifier as
>>> container unique identifier. A new PERF_RECORD_NAMESPACES event that
>>> records namespaces related info is introduced, from which the cgroup
>>> namespace's device & inode numbers are used as cgroup identifier.
This
>>> is based on the assumption that each container is created with it's own
>>> cgroup namespace allowing assessment/analysis of multiple containers
>>> using cgroup identifier.
>> Why choose cgroups when the kernel dispenses namespace-unique
>> identifiers. Cgroup membership can be arbitrary. Moreover, cgroup and
>
> Agreed. But doesn't that hold for any other namespace or a combination
> of namespaces as well?
I guess that's part of my concern. There is no container-unique
identifier on the system, since the notion of containers is a construct
of higer-level software.
I wish we had a container-unique identifier. A container-unique
identifier will make things a lot more better, not just for
container-aware tracing but for audit subsystem as well.
https://lwn.net/Articles/699819/#Comments
--
Regards,
Aravinda