[RFC/Review] Prevent network namespace memory exhaution

[Tim Gardner]

On 03/25/2011 07:16 AM, John Johansen wrote:

>> I'm still not convinced that CONFIG_NET_NS=n isn't the best
>> solution, despite the complaints that change might elicit. I'd like
>> to hear from the consumers of network name spaces about how they
>> are using the feature, and possible workarounds if it were to go
>> away.
>>
> That is the solution I would like but I think that at least for the
> server that is going to be problematic. Container are seeing a lot of
> use.
>

While containers in general are in use, are network name spaces 
pro-actively being used? Is there some workload that is _dependent_ on 
NET_NS ? I'm not proposing that we disable containers or other name 
space features, only NET_NS.

> If we were to go with an SRU of this I would lean towards the smaller
> patchset that is enough to prevent memory being eaten (7 of the 13),
> and then if speed is a problem the remain 6 could be SRUed
> afterwards.

I'm not keen on releasing a kernel that reduces connection 
setup/teardown by an order of magnitude. Surely this'll have an adverse 
impact on web servers and the like.

rtg
-- 
Tim Gardner tim.gardner at canonical.com