From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d28relay04.in.ibm.com (d28relay04.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.61]) by e28esmtp05.in.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m82AClUA008453 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2008 15:42:47 +0530 Received: from d28av01.in.ibm.com (d28av01.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.63]) by d28relay04.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.0) with ESMTP id m82ACkt11855528 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2008 15:42:46 +0530 Received: from d28av01.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d28av01.in.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m82ACk3a009190 for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2008 15:42:46 +0530 Message-ID: <48BD119B.8020605@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:42:43 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Remove cgroup member from struct page References: <20080831174756.GA25790@balbir.in.ibm.com> <200809011656.45190.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <20080901161927.a1fe5afc.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <200809011743.42658.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <48BD0641.4040705@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080902190256.1375f593.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <48BD0E4A.5040502@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20080902190723.841841f0.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <20080902190723.841841f0.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: Nick Piggin , Andrew Morton , hugh@veritas.com, menage@google.com, xemul@openvz.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:28:34 +0530 > Balbir Singh wrote: > >> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: >>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:54:17 +0530 >>> Balbir Singh wrote: >>> >>>> Nick Piggin wrote: >>>>> That could be a reasonable solution. Balbir has other concerns about >>>>> this... so I think it is OK to try the radix tree approach first. >>>> Thanks, Nick! >>>> >>>> Kamezawa-San, I would like to integrate the radix tree patches after review and >>>> some more testing then integrate your patchset on top of it. Do you have any >>>> objections/concerns with the suggested approach? >>>> >>> please show performance number first. >> Yes, that is why said some more testing. I am running lmbench and kernbench on >> it and some other tests, I'll get back with numbers. >> > A test which is not suffer much from I/O is better. > And please don't worry about my patches. I'll reschedule if yours goes first. > Thanks, I'll try and find the right set of tests. -- 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