From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 02:43:25 +0200 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [patch] SLQB v2 Message-ID: <20080502004325.GA30768@wotan.suse.de> References: <20080410193137.GB9482@wotan.suse.de> <20080415034407.GA9120@ubuntu> <20080501015418.GC15179@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: "Ahmed S. Darwish" , Linux Memory Management List , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-ID: On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 12:29:13PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 1 May 2008, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > A small question for SLUB devs, would you accept a patch that does > > > a similar thing by creating 'slub_page' instead of stuffing slub > > > elements (freelist, inuse, ..) in 'mm_types::struct page' unions ? > > > > I'd like to see that. I have a patch for SLUB, actually. > > We could do that but then how do we make sure that both definitions stay > in sync? >So far I have thought that it is clearer if we have one def > that shows how objects are overloaded. > > There is also the overloading of page flags that is now done separately > in SLUB. I wonder if that needs to be moved into page-flags.h? Would > clarify how page flags are overloaded. > > If someone inspects the contents of a page struct via debug then it would > help if all the possible uses are in one place. If the stuff in tucked > away in mm/sl?b.c then its difficult to find. If you are not debugging sl?b.c code/pages, then why would you want to see what those fields are? -- 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