Messages in this thread | | | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] uts namespaces: Implement utsname namespaces | Date | Sun, 9 Apr 2006 08:00:57 +0200 |
| |
On Saturday 08 April 2006 22:28, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> This is something we've been discussing - whether to use a single > "container" structure pointing to all the namespaces, or put everything > into the task_struct. Using container structs means more cache misses > and refcounting issues, but keeps task_struct smaller as you point out.
The more cache misses argument seems bogus to me. If you consider the case of a lot of processes with lots of shared name spaces the overall foot print should be in fact considerable less.
> The consensus so far has been to start putting things into task_struct > and move if needed. At least the performance numbers show that so far > there is no impact.
Performance is not the only consider consideration here. Overall memory consumption is important too.
Sure for a single namespace like utsname it won't make much difference, but it likely will if you have 10-20 of these things.
> > iirc container patches have been sent before. Should those be resent, > then, and perhaps this patchset rebased on those?
I think so.
-Andi - 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/
| |