Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/7] UBC: kernel memory accounting (core)

Dave Hansen
2006-08-16T18:47:41Z

On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 19:40 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> --- ./include/linux/mm.h.kmemcore 2006-08-16 19:10:38.000000000
> +0400
> +++ ./include/linux/mm.h 2006-08-16 19:10:51.000000000 +0400
> @@ -274,8 +274,14 @@ struct page {
> unsigned int gfp_mask;
> unsigned long trace[8];
> #endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_USER_RESOURCE
> + union {
> + struct user_beancounter *page_ub;
> + } bc;
> +#endif
> };

Is everybody OK with adding this accounting to the 'struct page'? Is
there any kind of noticeable performance penalty for this? I thought
that we had this aligned pretty well on cacheline boundaries.

How many things actually use this? Can we have the slab ubcs without
the struct page pointer?

-- Dave