Re: [PATCH 1/4] Virtualization/containers: introduction

From: Kirill Korotaev
Date: Wed Feb 08 2006 - 10:40:41 EST

My point was to mainly identify the performance culprits and provide
an direct access to those "namespaces" for performance reasons.
So we all agreed on that we need to do that..
After having looked at Eric's patch, I can tell that he does all these dereferences in quite the same amount.

For example, lot's of skb->sk->host->...
while in OpenVZ it would be econtainer()->... which is essentially current->container->...

So until someone did measurements it looks doubtfull that one solution is better than the another.

Question now (see other's note as well), should we provide
a pointer to each and every namespace in struct task.
Seem rather wasteful to me as certain path/namespaces are not
exercise heavily.

Having one object "struct container" that still embodies all
namespace still seems a reasonable idea.
Otherwise identifying the respective namespace of subsystems will
have to go through container->init->subsys_namespace or similar.
Not necessarily bad either..

why not simply container->subsys_namespace?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at