On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 01:22:44PM -0800, Paul Jackson wrote: > I still can't claim to have my head around this, but what you write > here, Herbert, writes here touches on what I suspect is a key > difference between namespaces and resources that would make it > impractical to accomplish both with a shared mechanism for aggregating > tasks.
The way nsproxy is structured, its all pointers to actual namespace (or in case of rcfs patch) resource objects. This lets namespaces objects be in a flat hierarchy while resource objects are in tree-like hierarchy. nsproxy itself doesnt decide any hierarchy. Its those objects pointed to by nsproxy which can form different hierarchies. In fact the rcfs patches allows such a combination afaics. > > on every limit accounting or check? I think that > > is quite a lot of overhead ... > > Do either of these dereferences require locks? A rcu_read_lock() should be required, which is not that expensive. -- Regards, vatsa ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
