Pavel Emelianov wrote: > Cedric Le Goater wrote: >> Pavel Emelianov wrote: >>> Cedric Le Goater wrote: >>>> Pavel and all, >>> [snip] >>> >>>> findings are : >>>> >>>> * definitely better results for suka's patchset. suka's patchset is >>>> also getting better results with unixbench on a 2.6.22-rc1-mm1 but >>>> the values are really dispersed. can you confirm ? >>>> * suka's patchset would benefit from some optimization in init_upid() >>>> and dup_struct_pid() >>> We have found the reason why Suka's patches showed better performance. >>> Some time ago I sent a letter saying that proc_flush_task() actually >>> never worked with his patches - that's the main problem. After removing >>> this call from my patches the results turned to those similar to my. >>> >>> I'd also like to note that broken-out set of patches is not git bisect >>> safe at all. The very first patch of his own OOPSes the node. Some >>> subsequent patches contain misprints that break the compilation, etc. >>> >>> So I ask you again - let us prepare our patches again and compare the >>> performance one more time. >> OK. that's fine with me. >> >> I'm not exactly in a neutral zone but I have the blades ready for the >> next drop of patches. I'll torture them if you don't mind. > > I do not :) I am going to send my view of pid namespaces this evening > or tomorrow morning (I am in GMT+3 time zone :)). I'm in Toulouse, France. GMT+1 > Are you going to fix your patches for comparison? yes. suka (GMT-8) has a pidns patchset ready for 2.6.22-rc4-mm2 that he should send when he wakes up. thanks pavel, C. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
