[PATCH 0/2] resource control file system - aka containers on top
vatsa at in.ibm.com
Mon Mar 5 09:47:50 PST 2007
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 01:22:44PM -0800, Paul Jackson wrote:
> I still can't claim to have my head around this, but what you write
> here, Herbert, writes here touches on what I suspect is a key
> difference between namespaces and resources that would make it
> impractical to accomplish both with a shared mechanism for aggregating
The way nsproxy is structured, its all pointers to actual namespace (or
in case of rcfs patch) resource objects. This lets namespaces objects be in a
flat hierarchy while resource objects are in tree-like hierarchy.
nsproxy itself doesnt decide any hierarchy. Its those objects pointed to
by nsproxy which can form different hierarchies. In fact the rcfs
patches allows such a combination afaics.
> > on every limit accounting or check? I think that
> > is quite a lot of overhead ...
> Do either of these dereferences require locks?
A rcu_read_lock() should be required, which is not that expensive.
More information about the Containers