Re: [RFC][PATCH] page->mapping clarification [1/3] base functions

[Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>]

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:02:47 +0100 (BST)
> Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com> wrote:
> 
> > Or should I now leave PG_swapcache as is,
> > given your designs on page->mapping?
> > 
>  will conflict with my idea ?
> ==
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=118956492926821&w=2
> ==

I asked because I had thought it would be a serious conflict: obviously
the patches as such would conflict quite a bit, but that's not serious,
one or the other just gets fixed up.

But now I don't see it - we both want to grab a further bit from the
low bits of the page->mapping pointer, you PAGE_MAPPING_INFO and me
PAGE_MAPPING_SWAP; but that's okay, so long as whoever is left using
bit (1<<2) is careful about the 32-bit case and remembers to put
__attribute__((aligned(sizeof(long long))))
on the declarations of struct address_space and struct anon_vma
and your struct page_mapping_info.

Would that waste a little memory?  I think not with SLUB,
but perhaps with SLOB, which packs a little tighter.

Hugh

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>