On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 09:58 +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 12:01 +0400, Pavel Emelianov wrote:
> >> This is "submition for inclusion" of hierarchical, not kconfig
> >> configurable, zero overheaded ;) pid namespaces.
> > 
> > Pavel, I'm a bit disappointed that you went ahead and sent this.  I
> > thought that, perhaps, you might have brought up how displeased you were
> > with Suka's patches when we discussed them at OLS.  
> > 
> > Hold your horses there a bit.  This has "little" overhead for the common
> > case, which is a single level of pid namespaces.  That means that it is
> > quick to access the "global" pid which would be the one that the "host
> > container" sees.  It also provides quick access to the pid which a
> > containerized task gets when the task itself calls getpid().  This quick
> > access is provided by storing the values directly in the task struct.
> > 
> > However, when there is more than one level in the container hierarchy,
> > the optimization breaks down.  A process which exists in a three-level
> > hierarchy has slow access to the middle level pid.  Your approach stores
> > this information in a linked list, and surely *that* is going to have
> 
> No. This approach stores numerical values in array. I have
> removed the lists at all.

Ahh.  I was confused by the hlist in 'struct pid'.  You are very correct.

Suka actually coded up something very, very similar to what you have.  I
just made him remove some of it so that the patches could be more easily
reviewed.  I figured we could add the fully dynamic allocation later,
which you have already done.  That part of your patches is remarkably
similar.  

-- Dave

_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers