[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction
    > My point was to mainly identify the performance culprits and provide
    > an direct access to those "namespaces" for performance reasons.
    > So we all agreed on that we need to do that..
    After having looked at Eric's patch, I can tell that he does all these
    dereferences in quite the same amount.

    For example, lot's of skb->sk->host->...
    while in OpenVZ it would be econtainer()->... which is essentially

    So until someone did measurements it looks doubtfull that one solution
    is better than the another.

    > Question now (see other's note as well), should we provide
    > a pointer to each and every namespace in struct task.
    > Seem rather wasteful to me as certain path/namespaces are not
    > exercise heavily.

    > Having one object "struct container" that still embodies all
    > namespace still seems a reasonable idea.
    > Otherwise identifying the respective namespace of subsystems will
    > have to go through container->init->subsys_namespace or similar.
    > Not necessarily bad either..

    why not simply container->subsys_namespace?


    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: 2006-02-08 16:45    [W:0.020 / U:0.688 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site