![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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 06:10 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||