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 _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
