On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 13:27 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Rohit Seth <[email protected]> writes:
> > */
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CONTAINERS
> > + struct container_struct *ctn; /* Pointer to container, may be NULL */
> > +#endif
>
> I still don't think it's a good idea to add a pointer to struct page for this.
I thought last time you supported adding a pointer to struct page (when
you mentioned next gen slab will also consume page->mapping). May be I
missed your point.
> This means any kernel that enables the config would need to carry this significant
> overhead, no matter if containers are used to not.
>
Sure this is non-zero overhead but I think this is the logical place to
track the memory.
> Better would be to store them in some other data structure that is only
> allocated on demand or figure out a way to store them in the sometimes
> not all used fields in struct page.
>
which one...I think the fields in page structure are already getting
doubly used.
> BTW your patchkit seems to be also in wrong order in that when 02 is applied
> it won't compile.
Not sure if I understood that. I've myself tested these patches on
2.6.18-rc6-mm2 kernel and they apply just fine. Are you just trying to
apply 02....if so then that wouldn't suffice.
-rohit
-
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]