[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:0.059 / U:4.112 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site