[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20131105155619.021f32eba1ca8f15a73ed4c9@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 15:56:19 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: create a separate slab for page->ptl allocation
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 00:42:17 +0200 "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name> 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.
Really the function shouldn't exist in this case. It is __init so the
sin is not terrible, but can this be arranged?
--
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