On 4/3/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 09:52:35AM -0700, Paul Menage wrote: > > I'm not saying "let's use nsproxy" - I'm not yet convinced that the > > lifetime/mutation/correlation rate of a pointer in an nsproxy is > > likely to be the same as for a container subsystem; if not, then > > reusing nsproxy could actually increase space overheads (since you'd > > end up with more, larger nsproxy objects, compared to smaller numbers > > of smaller nsproxy objects and smaller numbers of smaller > > container_group objects), even though it saved (just) one pointer per > > task_struct. > > Even if nsproxy objects are made larger a bit, the number of such object will
You're not making them "a bit" larger, you're adding N+M pointers where N is the number of container hierarchies and M is the number of subsystem slots. Basically, it means that anyone that uses containers without namespaces or vice versa ends up paying the space overheads for both. > be -much- lesser compared to number of task_structs I would think, so > the win/lose in space savings would need to take that into account. Agreed. So I'm not saying it's fundamentally a bad idea - just that merging container_group and nsproxy is a fairly simple space optimization that could easily be done later. Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
