From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1767377AbXCIQeO (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 11:34:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1767375AbXCIQeO (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 11:34:14 -0500 Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.141]:47297 "EHLO e1.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1767378AbXCIQeM (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 11:34:12 -0500 Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 22:11:18 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: "Paul Menage" Cc: ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sam@vilain.net, dev@sw.ru, xemul@sw.ru, pj@sgi.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, winget@google.com, containers@lists.osdl.org, "Serge E. Hallyn" , akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system - aka containers on top of nsproxy! Message-ID: <20070309164118.GO6504@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: vatsa@in.ibm.com References: <20070301133543.GK15509@in.ibm.com> <6599ad830703061832w49179e75q1dd975369ba8ef39@mail.gmail.com> <20070307173031.GC2336@in.ibm.com> <20070307174346.GA19521@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <20070307180055.GC17151@in.ibm.com> <20070307205846.GB7010@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <6599ad830703071320ib687019h34d2e66c4abc3794@mail.gmail.com> <20070309163430.GN6504@in.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070309163430.GN6504@in.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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