lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction
From
Date
Hubertus Franke <frankeh@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>
> Agreed.. here are some issued we learned from other projects that had
> similar interception points.
>
> Having a central umbrella object (let's stick to the name container)
> is useful, but being the only object through which every access has to
> pass may have drawbacks..
>
> task->container->pspace->pidmap[offset].page implies potential
> cachemisses etc.
>
> If overhead becomes too large, then we can stick (cache) the pointer
> additionally in the task struct. But ofcourse that should be carefully
> examined on a per subsystem base...

Ok. After talking with the vserver guys on IRC. I think grasp the
importance. The key feature is to have a place to put limits and the
like for your entire container. Look at all of the non-signal stuff
in struct signal for an example. The nested namespaces seem to
be just an implementation detail.

For OpenVZ having the other namespaces nested may have some
importance. I haven't gotten their yet.

The task->container->pspace->.... thing feels very awkward to me,
and feels like it increases our chance getting a cache miss.
So I support the concept of a place to put all of the odd little
things like rlimits for containers. But I would like to flatten
it in the task_struct if we can.


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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-02-08 06:08    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans