On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 11:13:11PM +0000, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> 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.
FWIW: if the architecture selects ARCH_USE_CMPXCHG_LOCKREF, then a spinlock_t
is 32-bit (assuming that unsigned int is also 32-bit).
Will
--
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>