[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <E484D272A3A61B4880CDF2E712E9279F4591C476@hhmail02.hh.imgtec.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 21:08:33 +0000
From: Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders@...tec.com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
CC: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/5] LLVMLinux: Correct size_index table before
replacing the bootstrap kmem_cache_node.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: penberg@...il.com [mailto:penberg@...il.com] On Behalf Of
> Pekka Enberg
> Sent: 04 February 2015 20:42
> To: Daniel Sanders
> Cc: Christoph Lameter; David Rientjes; Joonsoo Kim; Andrew Morton; linux-
> mm@...ck.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] LLVMLinux: Correct size_index table before
> replacing the bootstrap kmem_cache_node.
>
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Daniel Sanders
> <Daniel.Sanders@...tec.com> wrote:
> > I don't believe the bug to be LLVM specific but GCC doesn't normally
> encounter the problem. I haven't been able to identify exactly what GCC is
> doing better (probably inlining) but it seems that GCC is managing to
> optimize to the point that it eliminates the problematic allocations. This
> theory is supported by the fact that GCC can be made to fail in the same way
> by changing inline, __inline, __inline__, and __always_inline in
> include/linux/compiler-gcc.h such that they don't actually inline things.
>
> OK, makes sense. Please include that explanation in the changelog and
> drop use proper "slab" prefix instead of the confusing "LLVMLinux"
> prefix in the subject line.
>
> - Pekka
Sure. I've just updated the patch with those changes.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists