[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070309164118.GO6504@in.ibm.com>
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