From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <45101EAE.2070303@yahoo.com.au> Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 02:45:34 +1000 From: Nick Piggin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Get rid of zone_table V2 References: <20060918132818.603196e2.akpm@osdl.org> <20060918161528.9714c30c.akpm@osdl.org> <20060918165808.c410d1d4.akpm@osdl.org> <20060918173134.d3850903.akpm@osdl.org> <20060918233337.ef539a2b.akpm@osdl.org> <20060919083851.75b26075.akpm@osdl.org> <4510196A.5090306@yahoo.com.au> In-Reply-To: <4510196A.5090306@yahoo.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andy Whitcroft , Dave Hansen List-ID: Nick Piggin wrote: > Christoph Lameter wrote: >> Would be okay to grow the size of struct zone to the next power of 2 >> bytes? > > > I'd say yes: it is only memory we're talking about here, not cachelines, > because the whole thing is cacheline aligned up the wazoo anyway. Let's > see, on your example system that would take up an extra 896 bytes per > struct zone... not too bad. > > And it is a better solution than shrinking because it will work on all > architectures and configurations. BTW. I wonder why gcc isn't using two shifts in your example? Not that I think it would be great even if it were, because subtle differences could cause that to become more shifts... -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com -- 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