lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: No more bits in vm_area_struct's vm_flags.
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> Another concern that has not been discussed is the increased cache
> footprint due to a slightly enlarged vm data working set (there is also a
> corresponding icache issue since additional accesses are needed).

Using unsigned long long vm_flags makes no difference to cache footprint
on 64-bit systems, being a no-op there; and I think these days, though
we sure like our 32-bit systems to run well, we're not so anxious about
saving every last cycle on them.

>
> Could we stick with the current size and do combinations of flags like we
> do with page flags?

Are we doing that? If you have some example like, when PG_slab is set
then PG_owner_priv_1 means such-and-such, but if not not: okay, I'm
fine with that.

But if you're saying something like, if PG_reclaim is set at the same
time as PG_buddy, then they mean the page is not a buddy or under
reclaim, but brokenbacked: then I'm a bit (or even 32 bits) worried.

> VM_HUGETLB cannot grow up and down f.e. and there are
> certainly lots of other impossible combinations that can be used to put
> more information into the flags.

Where it makes sense, where it's understandable, okay: there may be a
few which could naturally use combinations. But in general, no, I
think we'd be asking for endless maintenance trouble if we change the
meaning of some flags according to other flags.

Hugh


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-01 12:57    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans