Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 04:06:15PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > +#if USE_SPLIT_PMD_PTLOCKS
> > +
> > +static inline void pgtable_pmd_page_ctor(struct page *page)
> > +{
> > + spin_lock_init(&page->ptl);
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
> > + page->pmd_huge_pte = NULL;
> > +#endif
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void pgtable_pmd_page_dtor(struct page *page)
> > +{
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
> > + VM_BUG_ON(page->pmd_huge_pte);
> > +#endif
> > +}
> > +
> > +#define pmd_huge_pte(mm, pmd) (virt_to_page(pmd)->pmd_huge_pte)
> > +
> > +#else
>
> So on -rt we have the problem that spinlock_t is rather huge (its a
> rtmutex) so instead of blowing up the pageframe like that we treat
> page->pte as a pointer and allocate the spinlock.
>
> Since allocations could fail the above ctor path gets 'interesting'.
>
> It would be good if new code could assume the ctor could fail so we
> don't have to replicate that horror-show.
Okay, I'll rework this.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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>