On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 09:14:45PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Actually I looked both at the struct and at the slab alignment just in
case it was changed recently. Now after reading your mail I also
compiled it just in case.
2.6.26-rc1
# name <active_objs> <num_objs> <objsize> <objperslab> <pagesperslab> : tunables <limit> <batchcount> <sharedfactor> : slabdata <active_slabs> <num_slabs> <sharedavail>
anon_vma 260 576 24 144 1 : tunables 120 60 8 : slabdata 4 4 0
^^ ^^^
2.6.26-rc1 + below patch
diff --git a/include/linux/rmap.h b/include/linux/rmap.h
--- a/include/linux/rmap.h
+++ b/include/linux/rmap.h
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ struct anon_vma {
struct anon_vma {
spinlock_t lock; /* Serialize access to vma list */
struct list_head head; /* List of private "related" vmas */
+ int flag:1;
};
#ifdef CONFIG_MMU
# name <active_objs> <num_objs> <objsize> <objperslab> <pagesperslab> : tunables <limit> <batchcount> <sharedfactor> : slabdata <active_slabs> <num_slabs> <sharedavail>
anon_vma 250 560 32 112 1 : tunables 120 60 8 : slabdata 5 5 0
^^ ^^^
Not a big deal sure to grow it 33%, it's so small anyway, but I don't
see the point in growing it. sort() can be interrupted by signals, and
until it can we can cap it to 512 vmas making the worst case taking
dozen usecs, I fail to see what you have against sort().
Again: if a vma bitflag + global lock could have avoided sort and run
O(N) instead of current O(N*log(N)) I would have done that
immediately, infact I was in the process of doing it when you posted
the followup. Nothing personal here, just staying technical. Hope you
too.
--
