From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17BFE6B004A for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 23:12:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.226]) by e38.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o9734JEV032548 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 21:04:19 -0600 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o973C8vJ175090 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 21:12:09 -0600 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id o973C8pL026188 for ; Wed, 6 Oct 2010 21:12:08 -0600 Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 08:42:04 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Subject: Re: [RFC] Restrict size of page_cgroup->flags Message-ID: <20101007031203.GK4195@balbir.in.ibm.com> Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20101006142314.GG4195@balbir.in.ibm.com> <20101007085858.0e07de59.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101007085858.0e07de59.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" List-ID: * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [2010-10-07 08:58:58]: > On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 19:53:14 +0530 > Balbir Singh wrote: > > > I propose restricting page_cgroup.flags to 16 bits. The patch for the > > same is below. Comments? > > > > > > Restrict the bits usage in page_cgroup.flags > > > > From: Balbir Singh > > > > Restricting the flags helps control growth of the flags unbound. > > Restriciting it to 16 bits gives us the possibility of merging > > cgroup id with flags (atomicity permitting) and saving a whole > > long word in page_cgroup > > > > Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh > > Doesn't make sense until you show the usage of existing bits. ?? > And I guess 16bit may be too large on 32bit systems. too large on 32 bit systems? My intention is to keep the flags to 16 bits and then use cgroup id for the rest and see if we can remove mem_cgroup pointer > Nack for now. > The issue is - do you see further growth of flags? > Thanks, > -Kame > -- Three Cheers, Balbir -- 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