2009/7/3 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Anyway, above algorithm shows that it's enough to have per-cgroup bitmap > (size can be dinamically changed) rather than big table and ugly sort(). > How about adding per-cgroup taskid bitmap ? > clear/set is very easy. > A per-cgroup bitmap of task ids would mean (assuming that it's implemented as a sparse tree like an IDA) that you'd add extra allocations and possible failure points in the fork path - right now the fork overhead imposed by the cgroups framework itself is just linking yourself into your parent's css_set and bumping its refcount. I guess there probably are workloads where doing more work at fork/exit time and less at "tasks" scan time is a win, but that has to be balanced against those where fork/exit performance is more critical, and the fact that it would be adding another way that fork could fail. Paul _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
