lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] uts namespaces: Implement utsname namespaces
    Date
    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.

    -Andi
    -
    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: 2006-04-09 08:10    [W:0.023 / U:0.736 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site