On Sun, 31 Jul 2011 10:39:58 -0700 Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Linus Torvalds > > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Do we allocate the page map array sufficiently aligned that we > >> actually don't ever have the case of straddling a cacheline? I didn't > >> check. > > > > Oh, and another thing worth checking: did somebody actually check the > > timings for: > > I would like to see a followon patch that moves the mem_cgroup > pointer back into struct page. Copying some mem_cgroup people. > A very big change itself is in a future plan. It will do memory usage of page_cgroup from 32bytes to 8bytes. A small change, moving page_cgroup->mem_cgroup to struct page, may make sense. But...IIUC, there is an another user of a field as blkio cgroup. (They planned to add page_cgroup->blkio_cgroup) So, my idea is adding page->owner field and encode it in some way. For example, if we can encode it as |owner_flags | blkio_id | | memcg_id| this will work. (I'm not sure how performance will be..) And we can reduce size of page_cgroup from 32->24(or 16). In this usage, page->owner will be just required when CGROUP is used. So, a small machine will not need to increase size of struct page. If you increase size of 'struct page', memcg will try to make use of the field. But we have now some pending big patches (dirty_ratio etc...), moving pointer may take longer than expected. Thanks, -Kame -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>