[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] uts namespaces: Implement utsname namespaces
    On Saturday 08 April 2006 22:28, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:

    > This is something we've been discussing - whether to use a single
    > "container" structure pointing to all the namespaces, or put everything
    > into the task_struct. Using container structs means more cache misses
    > and refcounting issues, but keeps task_struct smaller as you point out.

    The more cache misses argument seems bogus to me. If you consider
    the case of a lot of processes with lots of shared name spaces
    the overall foot print should be in fact considerable less.

    > The consensus so far has been to start putting things into task_struct
    > and move if needed. At least the performance numbers show that so far
    > there is no impact.

    Performance is not the only consider consideration here. Overall
    memory consumption is important too.

    Sure for a single namespace like utsname it won't make much difference,
    but it likely will if you have 10-20 of these things.

    > iirc container patches have been sent before. Should those be resent,
    > then, and perhaps this patchset rebased on those?

    I think so.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-04-09 08:10    [W:0.020 / U:69.800 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site