Hubertus Franke <[email protected]> writes:
>
> Agreed.. here are some issued we learned from other projects that had
> similar interception points.
>
> Having a central umbrella object (let's stick to the name container)
> is useful, but being the only object through which every access has to
> pass may have drawbacks..
>
> task->container->pspace->pidmap[offset].page implies potential
> cachemisses etc.
>
> If overhead becomes too large, then we can stick (cache) the pointer
> additionally in the task struct. But ofcourse that should be carefully
> examined on a per subsystem base...
Ok. After talking with the vserver guys on IRC. I think grasp the
importance. The key feature is to have a place to put limits and the
like for your entire container. Look at all of the non-signal stuff
in struct signal for an example. The nested namespaces seem to
be just an implementation detail.
For OpenVZ having the other namespaces nested may have some
importance. I haven't gotten their yet.
The task->container->pspace->.... thing feels very awkward to me,
and feels like it increases our chance getting a cache miss.
So I support the concept of a place to put all of the odd little
things like rlimits for containers. But I would like to flatten
it in the task_struct if we can.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
