Quoting Pavel Emelianov (xemul@openvz.org):
> Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 15:45 +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> >> The detailed results are the following:
> >> Test name:    spawn     execl    shell    ps (sys time)
> >> 1(no ns) :    579.1     618.3    1623.2   3.052s
> >> 2(suka's):    570.7     610.8    1600.2   3.107s
> >> Slowdown :    1.5%      1.3%     1.4%     1.8%
> >>
> >> 3(no ns) :    580.6     616.0    1633.8   3.050s
> >> 4(flat)  :    580.8     615.1    1632.2   3.054s
> >> Slowdown :    0%        0.1%     <0.1%    0.1%
> >> 5(multi) :    576.9     611.0    1618.8   3.065s
> >> Slowdown :    0.6%      0.8%     0.9%     0.5%
> > 
> > Wow, thanks so much for running those.  You're a step ahead of us,
> > there!
> 
> Thanks :) Maybe we shall cooperate then and make three series
> of patches like
> 
> 1. * The Kconfig options;
> 
>    * The API. I.e. calls like task_pid_nr(), task_session_nr_ns() etc;
>    This part is rather important as I found that some places in kernel
>    where I had to lookup the hash in multilevel model were just pid->vpid
>    dereference in flat model. This is a good optimization.
> 
>    * The changes in the generic code that intruduce a bunch of 
>    #ifdef CONFIG_PID_NS
>     ...
>    #else
>    #ifdef CONFIG_PID_NS_FLAT
>    #endif
>    #ifdef CONFIG_PID_NS_MULTILEVEL
>    #endif
>    #endif
>    code in pid.c, sched.c, fork.c etc
> 
>    This patchset will have to make kernel prepared for namespaces injections
>    and (!) not to break normal kernel operation with CONFIG_PID_NS=n.

In principle there's nothing at all wrong with that (imo).  But the
thing is, given the way Suka's patchset is set up, there really isn't
any reason why it should be slower when using only one or two pid
namespaces.

Suka, right now are you allocating the struct upid separately from the
struct pid?  That alone might slow things down quite a bit.  By
allocating them as one large struct - saving both an alloc at clone, and
a dereference when looking at pid.upid[0] to get the pid_ns for instance
- you might get some of this perf back.

(Hmm, taking a quick look, it seems you're allocating the memory as one
chunk, but then even though the struct upid is just at the end of the
struct pid, you use a pointer to find the struct upid.  That could slow
things down a bit)

Anyway, Pavel, I'd like to look at some profiling data (when Suka or I
collects some) and see whether the slowdown is fixable.  If it isn't,
then we should definately look at combining the patchsets.

thanks,
-serge

> 2. The flat pid namespaces (my part)
> 3. The multilevel pid namespaces (suka's part)
> 
> > Did you happen to collect any profiling information during your runs? 
> 
> Unfortunately no :( My intention was to prove that hierarchy has
> performance implications and should be considered carefully.
> 
> > -- Dave
> > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Containers mailing list
> Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers