[lkml]   [2006]   [May]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 7/7] uts namespaces: Implement CLONE_NEWUTS flag
    Quoting Serge E. Hallyn (
    > Quoting Andi Kleen (
    > > 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

    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: 2006-05-03 18:22    [W:0.020 / U:38.512 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site