Re: [RFC][PATCH] page->mapping clarification [1/3] base functions

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...>
Cc: <clameter@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-mm@...>, <akpm@...>, <nickpiggin@...>, <ricknu-0@...>, <magnus.damm@...>
Date: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 5:50 pm

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:31:02 +0100 (BST)
Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com> wrote:

maybe just depends on the amount of used anon_vma and page_mapping_info etc...
I don't think a system which uses SLOB consumes such structs so much
as that memory-for-alignment is considered as "waste" of memory.

Anyway, I decided to go ahead with current container-info-per-page
implementation. If the size of page struct is problem at mainline inclusion
discussion, I'll be back.

Thanks,
-Kame
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [RFC][PATCH] page-&gt;mapping clarification [1/3] base f..., KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki, (Fri Sep 21, 11:06 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] page-&gt;mapping clarification [1/3] base f..., Christoph Lameter, (Thu Sep 20, 2:26 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] page-&gt;mapping clarification [1/3] base f..., KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki, (Thu Sep 20, 8:50 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] page-&gt;mapping clarification [1/3] base f..., KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki, (Fri Sep 21, 2:42 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] page->mapping clarification [1/3] base f..., KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki, (Wed Sep 26, 5:50 pm)
[RFC][PATCH] page-&gt;mapping clarification [3/3] changes in..., KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki, (Wed Sep 19, 3:46 am)