linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] mm/thp: Make ALLOC_SPLIT_PTLOCKS dependent on USE_SPLIT_PTE

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YKZFRPqg4wKjOdVg@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 20 May 2021 12:17:24 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] mm/thp: Make ALLOC_SPLIT_PTLOCKS dependent on
 USE_SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 01:03:06PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> Split ptlocks need not be defined and allocated unless they are being used.
> ALLOC_SPLIT_PTLOCKS is inherently dependent on USE_SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS. This
> just makes it explicit and clear. While here drop the spinlock_t element
> from the struct page when USE_SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS is not enabled.

I didn't spot this email yesterday.  I'm not a fan.  Isn't struct page
already complicated enough without adding another ifdef to it?  Surely
there's a better way than this.

> +++ b/include/linux/mm_types.h
> @@ -152,10 +152,12 @@ struct page {
>  				struct mm_struct *pt_mm; /* x86 pgds only */
>  				atomic_t pt_frag_refcount; /* powerpc */
>  			};
> +#if USE_SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS
>  #if ALLOC_SPLIT_PTLOCKS
>  			spinlock_t *ptl;
>  #else
>  			spinlock_t ptl;
> +#endif
>  #endif
>  		};
>  		struct {	/* ZONE_DEVICE pages */