On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 09:10:58 -0700 Paul Menage <menage@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > ok. But "sorting" at procs file seems not sane ;) -Kame > Paul > _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
