Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 21:50:41 -0500
From: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
To: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: potential for buffer_head shrinkage.
Message-ID: <20061230025041.GB12306@redhat.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20061230024554.GA12306@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20061230024554.GA12306@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 942
Lines: 23

On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 09:45:54PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
 > Looking at struct buffer_head, it seems that b_state
 > uses at most 15 bits, where it's defined as a 64bit entity
 > due to it being used by bit_spin_lock and friends.
 > 
 > Given it's not uncommon for a few hundred thousand of these
 > to be present, I wonder if it's worth the effort of folding
 > b_count into the upper bits of b_state, thus shrinking
 > buffer_head by 16 bits?  This would still leave 32 bits
 > 'wasted' for further bh_state_bits expansion if necessary.

My math here based on a 64 bit compile btw in case that wasn't obvious.
32 bit wouldn't leave room for expansion.

		Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
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/