Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932201AbWITSUL (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:20:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932204AbWITSUL (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:20:11 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.12]:11723 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932201AbWITSUJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:20:09 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references: content-type:organization:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=MzRBFFrIpGDR97e/dm1oDti3pYLWpsyIQhjfvwRBSbTjR7aLRxXQhaFnIbv2OprDo HXyEr4rT0cP3F2Atd9q8w== Subject: Re: [patch02/05]: Containers(V2)- Generic Linux kernel changes From: Rohit Seth Reply-To: rohitseth@google.com To: Andi Kleen Cc: CKRM-Tech , devel@openvz.org, linux-kernel In-Reply-To: <200609202014.48815.ak@suse.de> References: <1158718722.29000.50.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <1158770670.8574.26.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <200609202014.48815.ak@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Google Inc Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:19:37 -0700 Message-Id: <1158776378.8574.95.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2241 Lines: 54 On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 20:14 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Wednesday 20 September 2006 18:44, Rohit Seth wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 13:27 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > Rohit Seth writes: > > > > */ > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CONTAINERS > > > > + struct container_struct *ctn; /* Pointer to container, may be NULL */ > > > > +#endif > > > > > > I still don't think it's a good idea to add a pointer to struct page for this. > > > > I thought last time you supported adding a pointer to struct page (when > > you mentioned next gen slab will also consume page->mapping). > > I didn't. Alternative was a separate data structure. > > > which one...I think the fields in page structure are already getting > > doubly used. > > There are lots of different cases. At least for anonymous memory > ->mapping should be free. Perhaps that could be used for anonymous > memory and a separate data structure for the important others. > It is not free for anonymous memory as it is overloaded with pointer to anon_vma. I think one single pointer consistent across all page usages is just so much cleaner and simple... > slab should have at least one field free too, although it might be a different > one (iirc Christoph's rewrite uses more than the current slab, but it would > surprise me if he needed all) > > > > BTW your patchkit seems to be also in wrong order in that when 02 is applied > > > it won't compile. > > > > Not sure if I understood that. I've myself tested these patches on > > 2.6.18-rc6-mm2 kernel and they apply just fine. Are you just trying to > > apply 02....if so then that wouldn't suffice. > > I meant assuming the patchkit was applied you would break binary search > inbetween because not each piece compiles on its own. I've currently separated the patches based on where the changes are made and something that makes each a logical block. I will reorder the patches next time so that each subsequent patch compiles. -rohit - 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/