From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 16:19:27 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Remove cgroup member from struct page Message-Id: <20080901161927.a1fe5afc.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <200809011656.45190.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> References: <20080831174756.GA25790@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20080901090102.46b75141.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <200809011656.45190.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Andrew Morton , hugh@veritas.com, menage@google.com, xemul@openvz.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 16:56:44 +1000 Nick Piggin wrote: > On Monday 01 September 2008 10:01, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:17:56 +0530 > > > > Balbir Singh wrote: > > > This is a rewrite of a patch I had written long back to remove struct > > > page (I shared the patches with Kamezawa, but never posted them anywhere > > > else). I spent the weekend, cleaning them up for 2.6.27-rc5-mmotm (29 Aug > > > 2008). > > > > It's just because I think there is no strong requirements for 64bit > > count/mapcount. There is no ZERO_PAGE() for ANON (by Nick Piggin. I add him > > to CC.) (shmem still use it but impact is not big.) > > I think it would be nice to reduce the impact when it is not configured > anyway. Normally I would not mind so much, but this is something that > many distros will want to enable but fewer users will make use of it. > > I think it is always a very good idea to try to reduce struct page size. > When looking at the performance impact though, just be careful with the > alignment of struct page... I actually think it is going to be a > performance win in many cases to make struct page 64 bytes. > On 32bit, sizeof(struct page) = 32bytes + 4bytes(page_cgroup) On 64bit, sizeof(struct page) = 56bytes + 8bytes(page_cgroup) So, 32bit case is a problem. > > If you do that, it might even be an idea to allocate flat arrays with > bootmem. It would just be slightly more tricky more tricky to fit this > in with the memory model. But that's not a requirement, just an idea > for a small optimisation. > If we make mem_res_controller available only under SPARSEMEM, I think we can do in very straightfoward way. 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