Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] uts namespaces: Implement utsname namespaces

[Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>]

On Saturday 08 April 2006 22:28, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:

> This is something we've been discussing - whether to use a single
> "container" structure pointing to all the namespaces, or put everything
> into the task_struct.  Using container structs means more cache misses
> and refcounting issues, but keeps task_struct smaller as you point out.

The more cache misses argument seems bogus to me. If you consider 
the case of a lot of processes with lots of shared name spaces
the overall foot print should be in fact considerable less.


> The consensus so far has been to start putting things into task_struct
> and move if needed.  At least the performance numbers show that so far
> there is no impact.

Performance is not the only consider consideration here. Overall 
memory consumption is important too.

Sure for a single namespace like utsname it won't make much difference,
but it likely will if you have 10-20 of these things.

> 
> iirc container patches have been sent before.  Should those be resent,
> then, and perhaps this patchset rebased on those?

I think so.

-Andi