On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 03:56:19PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 00:42:17 +0200 "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > #if USE_SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS
> > > > +struct kmem_cache *page_ptl_cachep;
> > > > +void __init ptlock_cache_init(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (sizeof(spinlock_t) > sizeof(long))
> > > > + page_ptl_cachep = kmem_cache_create("page->ptl",
> > > > + sizeof(spinlock_t), 0, SLAB_PANIC, NULL);
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > Confused. If (sizeof(spinlock_t) > sizeof(long)) happens to be false
> > > then the kernel will later crash. It would be better to use BUILD_BUG_ON()
> > > here, if that works. Otherwise BUG_ON.
> >
> > if (sizeof(spinlock_t) > sizeof(long)) is false, we don't need dynamicly
> > allocate page->ptl. It's embedded to struct page itself. __ptlock_alloc()
> > never called in this case.
>
> OK. Please add a comment explaining this so the next reader doesn't get
> tripped up like I was.
Okay, I will tomorrow.
> Really the function shouldn't exist in this case. It is __init so the
> sin is not terrible, but can this be arranged?
I would like to get rid of __ptlock_alloc()/__ptlock_free() too, but I
don't see a way within C: we need to know sizeof(spinlock_t) on
preprocessor stage.
We can have a hack on kbuild level: write small helper program to find out
sizeof(spinlock_t) before start building and turn it into define.
But it's overkill from my POV. And cross-compilation will be a fun.
--
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>