Re: [BK PATCH 2.5] Introduce 64-bit versions of PAGE_{CACHE_,}{MASK,ALIGN}

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
>
> Why should I need to bother with index/offset? It is much more natural to
> work with bytes.

Two major reasons:
 - the page cache works with index/offset, and that should be your first
   priority, since the page cache is all that matters from a performance
   standpoint.
 - gcc is known to be broken with 64-bit stuff on 32-bit platforms, and
   minimizing the use of "long long" minimizes the risk of hitting bugs.

> Also the page cache limit of 32-bit index is IMO not good and needs to be
> removed.

Dream on. It's good, and it's not getting removed. The "struct page" is
size-critical, and also correctness-critical (see above on gcc issues).

We're not moving to a 64-bit index for the next few years. We're a lot
more likely to make PAGE_SIZE bigger, and generally praying that AMD's
x86-64 succeeds in the market, forcing Intel to make Yamhill their
standard platform. At which point we _could_ make things truly 64 bits
(the size pressure on "struct page" is largely due to HIGHMEM, and gcc
does fine on 64-bit platforms).

But that's certainly years away.

			Linus