On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 13:27 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > Rohit Seth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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). May be I missed your point. > This means any kernel that enables the config would need to carry this > significant > overhead, no matter if containers are used to not. > Sure this is non-zero overhead but I think this is the logical place to track the memory. > Better would be to store them in some other data structure that is only > allocated on demand or figure out a way to store them in the sometimes > not all used fields in struct page. > which one...I think the fields in page structure are already getting doubly used. > 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. -rohit ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ ckrm-tech mailing list https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
