Cedric Le Goater wrote: >> The flat model has many optimization ways in comparison with the multilevel >> one. Like we can cache the pid value on structs and some other. >> >> Moreover having generic level nesting sounds reasonable. Having single level >> nesting - too as all the namespace we have are single nested. But having the >> 4 level nesting sounds strange... Why 4? Why not 5? What if I don't know how >> many I will need exactly, but do know that it will be definitely more than 1? >> >> Moreover - I have shown that we can have 1% or less performance on generic >> nesting model, why not keep it? > > did you send that patchset ? is it included in the one you sent ?
The patchset I sent earlier changed slightly. The tests were performed on the version I sent. Right now I'm waiting for your results to make a final decision whether or not to develop the flat model together with the hierarchical one. So what are we going to do? The ways we have: 1. Make two models - hierarchical and flat. Maybe we'll see how to merge them later; 2. Optimize the hierarchical model to produce no performance hit on the first 2 levels (init and VS). I don't see the way to make this gracefully, but I maybe this can be solved ... somehow. Anyway, if the latest patches from Suka do not produce any noticeable overhead, I am OK to go on with them; 3. Make the CONFIG_MAX_NS_DEPTH model. This is likely to be fast in the flat case, but I am in doubt whether Andrew will like it :) > sorry if i missed something :( > > C. > Thanks, Pavel _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@openvz.org https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
