Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030381AbWBHPme (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Feb 2006 10:42:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030450AbWBHPme (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Feb 2006 10:42:34 -0500 Received: from mailhub.sw.ru ([195.214.233.200]:41814 "EHLO relay.sw.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030381AbWBHPmd (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Feb 2006 10:42:33 -0500 Message-ID: <43EA11C5.5010908@sw.ru> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 18:44:05 +0300 From: Kirill Korotaev User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; ru-RU; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030426 X-Accept-Language: ru-ru, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hubertus Franke CC: "Eric W. Biederman" , Sam Vilain , Rik van Riel , Kirill Korotaev , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, clg@fr.ibm.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com, greg@kroah.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, serue@us.ibm.com, arjan@infradead.org, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, saw@sawoct.com, devel@openvz.org, Dmitry Mishin Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction References: <43E7C65F.3050609@openvz.org> <43E83E8A.1040704@vilain.net> <43E8D160.4040803@watson.ibm.com> <43E92602.8040403@vilain.net> <43E92AC9.3090308@watson.ibm.com> <43E9FC85.1000500@watson.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <43E9FC85.1000500@watson.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1307 Lines: 36 > 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/