On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> With gcc 4.1.2:
>>
>> mm/memory.o: In function `create_huge_pmd':
>> memory.c:(.text+0x93e): undefined reference to `do_huge_pmd_anonymous_page'
>>
>> Converting transparent_hugepage_enabled() from a macro to a static
>> inline function reduced the ability of the compiler to remove unused
>> code.
>>
>> Fix this by marking create_huge_pmd() inline.
>>
>> Fixes: 16981d763501c0e0 ("mm: improve readability of transparent_hugepage_enabled()")
>> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Interestingly, create_huge_pmd() is emitted in the assembler output, but
>> never called.
>> ---
>> mm/memory.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
>> index cbb57194687e393a..0e517be91a89e162 100644
>> --- a/mm/memory.c
>> +++ b/mm/memory.c
>> @@ -3591,7 +3591,7 @@ static int do_numa_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> -static int create_huge_pmd(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>> +static inline int create_huge_pmd(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>> {
>
> This seems fragile, what if the kernel decides
...of course I meant *compiler* instead of 'kernel' here
> to ignore the inline
> hint? If it must be inlined to avoid compile errors then it should be
> __always_inline, right?
>
> I also wonder if it's enough to just specify __always_inline to
> transparent_hugepage_enabled(), i.e. in case the compiler is making an
> uninlined copy of transparent_hugepage_enabled() in mm/memory.c.
>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
