From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/45] FS-Cache: Recruit a couple of page flags for cache management [ver #41] Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:31:58 +0000 Message-ID: <18685.1227263518@redhat.com> References: <20081121001704.51e7d744.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20081120144139.10667.75519.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20081120144210.10667.11143.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: nfsv4@linux-nfs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dhowells@redhat.com, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Morton Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20081121001704.51e7d744.akpm@linux-foundation.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfsv4-bounces@linux-nfs.org Errors-To: nfsv4-bounces@linux-nfs.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > ow, that hurt. Every time someone does this I ask "how many are left" > but nobody seems to know how to work it out. Yeah, that worries me a bit too. That why we looked at reclaiming PG_private. The patches to do that didn't appear to be interesting, however. > How many are left? It depends on the configuration, but with maximum usage, 24 are used, except on IA64 where 25 are used. > I'd suggest that we make PagePrivate() go away completely, to prevent > accidental usages from sneaking back in. If that's practical. Well, there are still some places where PG_private does need to be checked individually. David