Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 May 2006 08:26:23 -0500 | From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/9] nsproxy: incorporate fs namespace |
| |
Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xmission.com): > "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com> writes: > > > > @@ -1727,11 +1727,16 @@ static void __init init_mount_tree(void) > > namespace->root = mnt; > > mnt->mnt_namespace = namespace; > > > > - init_task.namespace = namespace; > > + init_task.nsproxy->namespace = namespace; > > read_lock(&tasklist_lock); > > do_each_thread(g, p) { > > + /* do we want namespace count to be #nsproxies, > > + * or # processes pointing to the namespace? */ > > I am fairly certain we want the count to be #nsproxies. > > > get_namespace(namespace); > > - p->namespace = namespace; > > +#if 0 > > + /* should only be 1 nsproxy so far */ > > + p->nsproxy->namespace = namespace; > > +#endif > > } while_each_thread(g, p); > > read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); > > So I think this bit is wrong.
Ok - in that case I need to audit the rest of namespace usage to make certain nothing depends on the count being #tasks.
BTW - a first set of comparison results showed nsproxy to have better dbench and tbench throughput, and worse kernbench performance. Which may make sense given that nsproxy results in lower memory usage but likely increased cache misses due to extra pointer dereference.
-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/
| |