[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [rfc] increase struct page size?!
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 11:14:26AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > However we don't have to let those 8 bytes go to waste: we can use them
> > to store the virtual address of the page, which kind of makes sense for
> > 64-bit, because they can likely to use complicated memory models.
> That is not a valid consideration anymore. There is virtual memmap update
> pending with the sparsemem folks that will simplify things.
> > Many batch operations on struct page are completely random, and as such, I
> > think it is better if each struct page fits completely into a single
> > cacheline even if it means being slightly larger.
> Right. That would simplify the calculations.

It isn't the calculations I'm worried about, although they'll get simpler
too. It is the cache cost.

> > Don't let this space go to waste though, we can use page->virtual in order
> > to optimise page_address operations.
> page->virtual is a benefit if the page is cache hot. Otherwise it may
> cause a useless lookup.

It would be very rare for the page not to be in L1 cache at this point,
because we've likely taken a reference on it and/or locked it or moved it
between lists etc.

> I wonder if there are other uses for the free space?

Hugh points out that we should make _count and _mapcount atomic_long_t's,
which would probably be a better use of the space once your vmemmap goes
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-05-19 03:27    [W:0.534 / U:35.352 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site