| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 22:11:18 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com> To: "Paul Menage" <menage@...gle.com> Cc: ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sam@...ain.net, dev@...ru, xemul@...ru, pj@....com, ebiederm@...ssion.com, winget@...gle.com, containers@...ts.osdl.org, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system - aka containers on top of nsproxy! On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 10:04:30PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > 2. Regarding space savings, if 100 tasks are in a container (I dont know > what is a typical number) -and- lets say that all tasks are to share > the same resource allocation (which seems to be natural), then having > a 'struct container_group *' pointer in each task_struct seems to be not > very efficient (simply because we dont need that task-level granularity of > managing resource allocation). Note that this 'struct container_group *' pointer is in addition to the 'struct nsproxy *' pointer already in task_struct. If the set of tasks over which resorce control is applied is typically the same set of tasks which share the same 'struct nsproxy *' pointer, then IMHO 'struct container_group *' in each task_struct is not very optimal. -- Regards, vatsa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists