From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965550AbXDCRGH (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2007 13:06:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965641AbXDCRGH (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2007 13:06:07 -0400 Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.142]:36840 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965550AbXDCRGF (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2007 13:06:05 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 22:41:55 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: "Paul Menage" Cc: sekharan@us.ibm.com, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xemul@sw.ru, dev@sw.ru, rohitseth@google.com, pj@sgi.com, "Eric W. Biederman" , mbligh@google.com, winget@google.com, containers@lists.osdl.org, "Serge E. Hallyn" , devel@openvz.org Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 7/7] containers (V7): Container interface to nsproxy subsystem Message-ID: <20070403171155.GK2456@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: vatsa@in.ibm.com References: <20070212081521.808338000@menage.corp.google.com> <20070212085105.170265000@menage.corp.google.com> <20070331024722.GA808@in.ibm.com> <20070402140938.GF17710@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <20070402142727.GF2456@in.ibm.com> <20070403153220.GA24946@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <6599ad830704030845p654cf8dh65ccdc46c92d3688@mail.gmail.com> <20070403164615.GJ2456@in.ibm.com> <6599ad830704030952r5c295f3ap6e366de31dab2ccb@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6599ad830704030952r5c295f3ap6e366de31dab2ccb@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 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. -- Regards, vatsa