On Sun, 31 May 2009 16:15:50 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sun, 31 May 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > What I always find a bit weird is that an MM container is used as the > > central point for a number of sched obects. But it's logical, given > > that the never-before-stated definition of a heavyweight process is > > "thing which share a VM". > > It has nothing to do with "heavy-weight process" or anything else. > > The thing is, from a scheduling standpoint, one of the primary performance > concerns in the TLB switch. > > And there's a 1:1 relationship between TLB switch and MM container, modulo > the issue of kernel tasks (and those obviously "borrow" approproate MM > structs to avoid the switch). That's all an obscure performance-oriented internal implementation detail. > So it's not weird at all. It's very direct, and a very straightforward and > obvious relationship. It's arbitrary! If we were to gain more performance benefit by aggregating processes under, say, the fs_struct then that's the way the kernel would have been implemented. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
