Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 08 Feb 2006 18:44:05 +0300 | From | Kirill Korotaev <> | Subject | Re: [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 current->container->...
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?
Kirill
- 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/
| |