Paul Menage wrote: > On 10/2/07, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Such a lookup would require a hastable or something similar. We already >> have such a bad experience (with OpenVZ RSS fractions accounting for >> example). Hash lookups imply the CPU caches screwup and hurt the performance. >> See also the comment below. > > I think you could do it with an array lookup if you assigned an index > to each cache as it was created, and used that as an offset into a > per-cgroup array. > >> I thought the same some time ago and tried to make a per-beancounter kmem >> caches. The result was awful - the memory waste was much larger than in the >> case of pointer-per-object approach. > > OK, fair enough. > > Was this with a large number of bean counters? I imagine that with a > small number, the waste might be rather more reasonable. Yup. I do not remember the exact number, but this model didn't scale well enough in respect to the number of beancounters. > Paul > _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
