On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:02:47 +0100 (BST)
Hugh Dickins <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 3. I want to *try* page->mapping overriding... store memory resource controller's
> > information in page->mapping. By this, memory controller doesn't enlarge sizeof
> > struct page. (works well in my small test.)
> > Before doing that, I have to hide page->mapping from direct access.
>
> My own vote (nothing more) would be for you to set this aside until
> some future time when there aren't a dozen developers all trampling
> over each other in this area.
>
> They're invasive little changes affecting all filesystems, whereas what
> we've done so far with page->mapping hasn't affected filesystems at all.
>
I found that each FS doesn't touch page->mapping so much as I expected.
(except for ReiserFS)
But ok, I admit changing this will confuse people.
> 3: well, saving memory is good, but I think it could wait until some
> other time, particularly since the memory controller isn't in yet.
>
Yes, if extra field in page struct is not hazard to push memory controller,
I don't have much motivation.
Because extra 8 bytes makes page struct to be 64 bytes(in 64bit), extra 8 bytes
is the last space, I think.
> If we were to attack page->mapping to save memory from struct page,
> then we should consider Magnus Damm's idea too: he suggested it could
> be replaced by a pointer to the radixtree slot (something else needed
> in the anon case), from which "index" could be deduced via alignment
> instead of keeping it in struct page (details to be filled in ...)
>
There is a bit difference. My purpose is "avoid making struct page larger",
not "making struct page smaller".
> Or should I now leave PG_swapcache as is,
> given your designs on page->mapping?
>
will conflict with my idea ?
==
http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=118956492926821&w=2
==
Anyway, I'm not in hurry about this patch-set. I'll see what memory controller
will go. Other people seems to have an idea to implement
pfn <-> container_info_per_page function.
(But this kind of function is not welcomed always.)
Thank you for comments.
> p.s. Sorry to niggle, but next time, please say [PATCH 1/3] etc.
> rather than [PATCH] Long Description [1/3], so it's easier to
> sort the mail subjects by eye in limited columns - thanks.
>
sorry, I'll consider well next time.
Thanks,
-Kame
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
