From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e2.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iBH8gs8F025357 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 03:42:54 -0500 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id iBH8gsqZ258722 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 03:42:54 -0500 Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iBH8gsmu031701 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 03:42:54 -0500 Subject: Re: [patch] CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_ATOMIC_UNSIGNED From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: <20041217061150.GF12049@wotan.suse.de> References: <20041217061150.GF12049@wotan.suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1103272960.13614.3084.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:42:40 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andi Kleen Cc: linux-mm , Andy Wihitcroft , Matthew E Tolentino List-ID: On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 22:11, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 04:44:20PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > > This reduces another one of the dependencies that struct page's > > definition has on any arch-specific header files. Currently, > > only x86_64 uses this, so it's the only architecture that needed > > to be modified. > > That's for page_flags_t, right? Yep. > I think it could be dropped right now and just use unsigned long for > flags again. That's fine with me (and a much simpler patch). > Since the objrmap work the saved 4 bytes in struct page are wasted in padding > and I haven't found a way to use them for real space saving again > because all other members are 8 byte or paired 4 byte. Well, since you asked... :) In a newer revision of the nonlinear code, Andy Whitcroft has decided to store part of the page_to_pfn() translation directly in page->flags, right next to the zone information. This is a bit of a squeeze on 32-bit arches, but on the 64-bit ones, there's plenty of room since nobody is using the upper 32 bits at all. I didn't realize that x86_64 had a 32-bit type there, so we probably would have suggested turning it into a 64-bit one eventually. -- Dave -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org