Hi Andrew,
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 01 Apr 2015 10:47:49 +0100 Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> > -static int unmap_and_move(new_page_t get_new_page, free_page_t put_new_page,
>>> > - unsigned long private, struct page *page, int force,
>>> > - enum migrate_mode mode)
>>> > +static noinline int unmap_and_move(new_page_t get_new_page,
>>> > + free_page_t put_new_page,
>>> > + unsigned long private, struct page *page,
>>> > + int force, enum migrate_mode mode)
>>> > {
>>> > int rc = 0;
>>> > int *result = NULL;
>>> >
>>>
>>> Ouch. That's really ugly. And on 32bit ARM, we end-up spilling half of
>>> the parameters on the stack, which is not going to help performance
>>> either (not that this would be useful on 32bit ARM anyway...).
>>>
>>> Any chance you could make this dependent on some compiler detection
>>> mechanism?
>>
>> With my arm compiler (gcc-4.4.4) the patch makes no difference -
>> unmap_and_move() isn't being inlined anyway.
>>
>> How does this look?
>>
>> Kevin, could you please retest? I might have fat-fingered something...
>
> Your patch on top of Geert's still compiles fine for me with gcc-4.7.3.
> However, I'm not sure how specific we can be on the versions.
>
> /me goes to test a few more compilers... OK...
>
> ICE: 4.7.1, 4.7.3, 4.8.3
> OK: 4.6.3, 4.9.2, 4.9.3
>
> The diff below[2] on top of yours compiles fine here and at least covers
> the compilers I *know* to trigger the ICE.
I see my fix in your mmots since last Thurs (4/2), but it's not in
mmotm (last updated today) so today's linux-next still has the ICE for
anything other than gcc-4.7.3. Just checking to see when you plan to
update mmotm.
Thanks,
Kevin
--
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>