On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 08:42:04 +0530 Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2010-10-07 08:58:58]: > > > On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 19:53:14 +0530 > > Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > 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 <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Doesn't make sense until you show the usage of existing bits. > > ?? > Limiting something for NOT EXISTING PATCH doesn't make sense, in general. > > 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 > You can't use flags field to store mem_cgroup_id while we use lock bit on it. We have to store something more stable...as pfn or node-id or zone-id. It's very racy. Thanks, -Kame _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
