lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Oct]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] Restrict size of page_cgroup->flags
* KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2010-10-07 13:22:33]:

> On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 09:26:08 +0530
> Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2010-10-07 12:18:16]:
> >
> > > On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 08:42:04 +0530
> > > Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2010-10-07 08:58:58]:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 19:53:14 +0530
> > > > > Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I propose restricting page_cgroup.flags to 16 bits. The patch for the
> > > > > > same is below. Comments?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Restrict the bits usage in page_cgroup.flags
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Restricting the flags helps control growth of the flags unbound.
> > > > > > Restriciting it to 16 bits gives us the possibility of merging
> > > > > > cgroup id with flags (atomicity permitting) and saving a whole
> > > > > > long word in page_cgroup
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Doesn't make sense until you show the usage of existing bits.
> > > >
> > > > ??
> > > >
> > > Limiting something for NOT EXISTING PATCH doesn't make sense, in general.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > And I guess 16bit may be too large on 32bit systems.
> > > >
> > > > too large on 32 bit systems? My intention is to keep the flags to 16
> > > > bits and then use cgroup id for the rest and see if we can remove
> > > > mem_cgroup pointer
> > > >
> > >
> > > You can't use flags field to store mem_cgroup_id while we use lock bit on it.
> > > We have to store something more stable...as pfn or node-id or zone-id.
> > >
> > > It's very racy.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, correct it is racy, there is no easy way from what I know we can write
> > the upper 16 bits of the flag without affecting the lower 16 bits, if
> > the 16 bits are changing. One of the techniques could be to have lock
> > for the unsigned long word itself - but I don't know what performance
> > overhead that would add. Having said that I would like to explore
> > techniques that allow me to merge the two.
> >
>
> to store pfn, we need to limit under 12bit.
> I'll schedule my patch if dirty_ratio one goes.
>

cool! We'll redo the patch then and lets make this work. We'll need to
see how many bits we need for section/node/zone to do pc_to_pfn() and
pfn_to_page().

--
Three Cheers,
Balbir


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-10-07 10:05    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans