On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 09:05:21AM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: [...] > > Sorry, I should have been more clear. It's ok if some fields which are > rarely accessed in the pagefault path are placed in the same cacheling > with vm_lock. In fact I've done that to pack them better in the > previous version of this patchset here: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20241111205506.3404479-5-surenb@xxxxxxxxxx/ > (removed for now based on the feedback). So, vm_lock being the only > field on the cacheline is not my goal. After this patchset I'm > planning to try packing the members better and save some memory. > Nah, my bad, somehow I thought you want vm_lock to be on a cacheline alone.
