On 4/3/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
