On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 19:40 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> --- ./include/linux/mm.h.kmemcore       2006-08-16 19:10:38.000000000
> +0400
> +++ ./include/linux/mm.h        2006-08-16 19:10:51.000000000 +0400
> @@ -274,8 +274,14 @@ struct page {
>         unsigned int gfp_mask;
>         unsigned long trace[8];
>  #endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_USER_RESOURCE
> +       union {
> +               struct user_beancounter *page_ub;
> +       } bc;
> +#endif
>  };

Is everybody OK with adding this accounting to the 'struct page'?  Is
there any kind of noticeable performance penalty for this?  I thought
that we had this aligned pretty well on cacheline boundaries.

How many things actually use this?  Can we have the slab ubcs without
the struct page pointer?

-- Dave

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/