Re: page_waitqueue() considered harmful

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:55:44PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 10:01:30 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 09:54:12AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 09:30:55AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Simple is relative unless I drastically overcomplicated things and it
> > > wouldn't be the first time. 64-bit only side-steps the page flag issue
> > > as long as we can live with that.  
> > 
> > So one problem with the 64bit only pageflags is that they do eat space
> > from page-flags-layout, we do try and fit a bunch of other crap in
> > there, and at some point that all will not fit anymore and we'll revert
> > to worse.
> > 
> > I've no idea how far away from that we are for distro kernels. I suppose
> > they have fairly large NR_NODES and NR_CPUS.
> 
> I know it's not fashionable to care about them anymore, but it's sad if
> 32-bit architectures miss out fundamental optimisations like this because
> we're out of page flags. It would also be sad to increase the size of
> struct page because we're too lazy to reduce flags. There's some that
> might be able to be removed.

I'm all for cleaning some of that up, but its been a long while since I
poked in that general area.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]