OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [patch02/05]: Containers(V2)- Generic Linux kernel changes
Re: [patch02/05]: Containers(V2)- Generic Linux kernel changes [message #6609 is a reply to message #6606] Wed, 20 September 2006 18:19 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Rohit Seth is currently offline  Rohit Seth
Messages: 101
Registered: August 2006
Senior Member
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 20:14 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 September 2006 18:44, Rohit Seth wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 13:27 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > Rohit Seth <rohitseth@google.com> 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.
>

It is not free for anonymous memory as it is overloaded with pointer to
anon_vma. I think one single pointer consistent across all page usages
is just so much cleaner and simple...

> 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.


I've currently separated the patches based on where the changes are made
and something that makes each a logical block. I will reorder the
patches next time so that each subsequent patch compiles.

-rohit

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction
Next Topic: Re: [ckrm-tech] [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction
Goto Forum:
  

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Tue Feb 17 21:07:57 GMT 2026

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.16767 seconds
Powered by FUDforum Powered by Virtuozzo Containers