On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 21:18:37 -0700

Balbir Singh  wrote:
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:

quoted text
> > On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 20:58:10 +0530

> > Balbir Singh  wrote:

> >> Sorry for the delay in sending out the new patch, I am traveling and

> >> thus a little less responsive. Here is the update patch

> >>

> >>

> > Hmm.. I've considered this approach for a while and my answer is that

> > this is not what you really want.

> >

> > Because you just moves the placement of pointer from memmap to

> > radix_tree both in GFP_KERNEL, total kernel memory usage is not changed.

>

> Agreed, but we do reduce the sizeof(struct page) without adding on to

> page_cgroup's size. So why don't we want this?

>

> > So, at least, you have to add some address calculation (as I did in March)

> > to getting address of page_cgroup.

>

> What address calculation do we need, sorry I don't recollect it.

>

   base_address = base_addrees_of_page_group_chunk_of_pfn.

   base_address + offset_of_pfn_from_base_pfn * sizeof (struct page_cgroup).

Thanks,

-Kame
--

unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in

the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org

More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/