[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D6DB1BD.60003@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 10:55:57 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
CC: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] slub,rcu: don't assume the size of struct rcu_head
On 03/01/2011 11:11 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2011, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>
>> The SLAB and SLUB patches are fine by me if there are going to be real
>> users for this. Christoph, Paul?
>
> The solution is a bit overkill. It would be much simpler to add a union to
> struct page that has lru and the rcu in there similar things can be done
> for SLAB and the network layer. A similar issue already exists for the
> spinlock in struct page. Lets follow the existing way of handling this.
I don't want to impact the whole system too much to
touch struct page. The solution changes existed things little,
and the reversed data may just make use of the pad data.
>
> Struct page may be larger for debugging purposes already because of the
> need for extended spinlock data.
> --
> 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/
>
--
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