[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0810221123150.17454@quilx.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:24:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] SLUB - define OO_ macro instead of hardcoded numbers
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> [Christoph Lameter - Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:10:56AM -0700]
>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>>
>>> +#define OO_SHIFT 16
>>> +#define OO_MASK ((1 << OO_SHIFT) - 1)
>>> +#define MAX_OBJS_PER_PAGE 65535 /* see struct page.objects */
>>
>> This is == OO_MASK right? Otherwise things will break when we change
>> OO_SHIFT.
>>
>
> Yes, I set it 65535 directly to distinguish it from OO_MASK
> meaning not value and point to page.objects since they are
> u16. Which meant that is the point where all limits start.
> So it we set OO_SHIFT to say 14 it will not be a problem
> but if we exceed 16 bits it will break SLUB. Am I right?
> (I become scratching the head :)
If you set it > 16 then the size of the field in struct page is violated.
So
#define MAX_OBJ_PER_PAGE MIN(1 << bits_in(page.objects) - 1, OO_MASK)
?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists