[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FFF2040.1010008@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:06:40 -0400
From: Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
To: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>
CC: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] CLONE_NEWIPC and exit_group()
On 07/12/2012 02:54 PM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Kirill A. Shutemov (kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com):
>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 03:24:22PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> Am I reading that right? 1000 forks take 33 seconds, with basically
>>> all of it just sitting there asleep? This look quite terrible - what
>>> causes this?
>>
>> It seems free_nsproxy() + synchronize_rcu() are too heavy to be in
>> exit_group() path. Patch below helps: 8s -> ~0.5s for me.
>
> And sys time goes down by that much too, or only user time?
>
> Given that, with user namespaces, it'll soon be possible for users who
> are unprivileged toward the host to be able to create and destroy
> namespaces, if the patch ends up making it easy for a user to consume a
> bunch of system time and not have it accounted at all to himself, then
> I think we should keep it as is.
Indeed.
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD
http://people.redhat.com/dledford
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (901 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists