[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131106132155.GA22132@shutemov.name>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 15:21:55 +0200
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
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, Nov 06, 2013 at 10:31:31AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:13:11AM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Ah, I just remembered, we have such a thing!
Great!
> @@ -1354,7 +1356,7 @@ static inline bool ptlock_init(struct page *page)
> * slab code uses page->slab_cache and page->first_page (for tail
> * pages), which share storage with page->ptl.
> */
> - VM_BUG_ON(page->ptl);
> + VM_BUG_ON(*(unsigned long *)&page->ptl);
Huh? Why not direct cast to unsigned long?
VM_BUG_ON((unsigned long)page->ptl);
Otherwise:
Reviewed-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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