Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 May 2006 11:19:39 -0500 | From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 7/7] uts namespaces: Implement CLONE_NEWUTS flag |
| |
Quoting Serge E. Hallyn (serue@us.ibm.com): > Quoting Andi Kleen (ak@suse.de): > > On Tuesday 02 May 2006 19:20, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > > With many name spaces you would have smaller task_struct, less cache > > > > foot print, better cache use of task_struct because slab cache colouring > > > > will still work etc. > > > > > > I suppose we could run some performance tests with some dummy namespace > > > pointers? 9 void *'s directly in the task struct, and the same inside a > > > refcounted container struct. The results might add some urgency to > > > implementing the struct nsproxy. > > > > Not sure you'll notice too much difference on the beginning. I am just > > 9 void*'s is probably more than we'll need, though, so it's not "the > beginning". Eric previously mentioned uts, sysvipc, net, pid, and uid, > to which we might add proc, sysctl, and signals, though those are > probably just implied through the others. > > What others do you see us needing? > > If the number were more likely to be 50, then in the above experiment > use 50 instead - the point was to see the performance implications > without implementing the namespaces first. > > Anyway I guess I'll go ahead and queue up some tests.
Though of course one reason those tests won't be very meaningful is that the void*'s won't be being dereferenced, so we won't be accounting for the performance hit of the double dereference and resulting cache hits...
-serge - 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/
| |