From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 22:22:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20070517.222217.112287075.davem@davemloft.net> Subject: Re: [rfc] increase struct page size?! From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20070518051238.GA7696@wotan.suse.de> References: <20070518040854.GA15654@wotan.suse.de> <20070517.214740.51856086.davem@davemloft.net> <20070518051238.GA7696@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org From: Nick Piggin Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 07:12:38 +0200 Return-Path: To: npiggin@suse.de Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > The page->virtual thing is just a bonus (although have you seen what > sort of hoops SPARSEMEM has to go through to find page_address?! It > will definitely be a win on those architectures). If you set the bit ranges in asm/sparsemem.h properly, as I have currently on sparc64, it isn't bad at all. It's a single extra dereference from a table that sits in the main kernel image and thus is in a locked TLB entry. SPARSEMEM_EXTREME is pretty much unnecessary and with the virtual mem-map stuff the sparsemem overhead goes away entirely and we're back to "page - mem_map" type simple calculations obviating any dereferencing advantage from page->virtual. > 0.2% of memory, or 2MB per GB. But considering we already use 14MB per > GB for the page structures, it isn't like I'm introducing an order of > magnitude problem. All these little things add up, let's not suck like some other OSs by having that kind of mentality. Show me instead a change that makes page struct 8 bytes smaller :-)))) -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org