From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932199AbWITSOy (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:14:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932201AbWITSOy (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:14:54 -0400 Received: from mail.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:42213 "EHLO mx1.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932199AbWITSOx (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:14:53 -0400 From: Andi Kleen To: rohitseth@google.com Subject: Re: [patch02/05]: Containers(V2)- Generic Linux kernel changes Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:14:48 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 Cc: CKRM-Tech , devel@openvz.org, linux-kernel References: <1158718722.29000.50.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <1158770670.8574.26.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> In-Reply-To: <1158770670.8574.26.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200609202014.48815.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 20 September 2006 18:44, Rohit Seth wrote: > On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 13:27 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Rohit Seth 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). I didn't. Alternative was a separate data structure. > which one...I think the fields in page structure are already getting > doubly used. There are lots of different cases. At least for anonymous memory ->mapping should be free. Perhaps that could be used for anonymous memory and a separate data structure for the important others. slab should have at least one field free too, although it might be a different one (iirc Christoph's rewrite uses more than the current slab, but it would surprise me if he needed all) > > 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. I meant assuming the patchkit was applied you would break binary search inbetween because not each piece compiles on its own. -Andi