[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0910010944480.26219@gentwo.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 09:47:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>
cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@...a.org.au>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: No more bits in vm_area_struct's vm_flags.
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> 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.
Look at how compound pages are handled in include/linux/page-flags.h
> 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.
Of course you need to be careful not to use two bits that can be used
indepedently.
> > 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.
We made the page flags stuff configurable. On 64 bit we use more flags, on
32 bit we compress the page flags a bit. Maybe do the same for vm_flags?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists