From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 06:50:46 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] page->mapping clarification [1/3] base functions Message-Id: <20070927065046.508d33c0.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20070919164308.281f9960.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20070921095054.6386bae1.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20070922034234.bdb947e4.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Hugh Dickins Cc: clameter@sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, ricknu-0@student.ltu.se, magnus.damm@gmail.com List-ID: On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:31:02 +0100 (BST) Hugh Dickins wrote: > Would that waste a little memory? I think not with SLUB, > but perhaps with SLOB, which packs a little tighter. > 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 -- 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