linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the mm tree

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Ytk0TQO9khUQgjxT@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Jul 2022 04:11:09 -0700
From:   Zach O'Keefe <zokeefe@...gle.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warning after merge of the mm tree

On Jul 21 19:55, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> After merging the mm tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) produced this warning:
> 
> In file included from arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/mmu-hash.h:20,
>                  from arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/mmu.h:32,
>                  from arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu.h:393,
>                  from arch/powerpc/include/asm/lppaca.h:46,
>                  from arch/powerpc/include/asm/paca.h:18,
>                  from arch/powerpc/include/asm/current.h:13,
>                  from include/linux/thread_info.h:23,
>                  from include/asm-generic/preempt.h:5,
>                  from ./arch/powerpc/include/generated/asm/preempt.h:1,
>                  from include/linux/preempt.h:78,
>                  from include/linux/spinlock.h:55,
>                  from include/linux/mmzone.h:8,
>                  from include/linux/gfp.h:7,
>                  from include/linux/mm.h:7,
>                  from mm/khugepaged.c:4:
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/pgtable.h:190:25: warning: "__pte_index_size" is not defined, evaluates to 0 [-Wundef]
>   190 | #define PTE_INDEX_SIZE  __pte_index_size
>       |                         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/pgtable.h:241:39: note: in expansion of macro 'PTE_INDEX_SIZE'
>   241 | #define PMD_SHIFT       (PAGE_SHIFT + PTE_INDEX_SIZE)
>       |                                       ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> include/linux/huge_mm.h:109:25: note: in expansion of macro 'PMD_SHIFT'
>   109 | #define HPAGE_PMD_SHIFT PMD_SHIFT
>       |                         ^~~~~~~~~
> include/linux/huge_mm.h:105:26: note: in expansion of macro 'HPAGE_PMD_SHIFT'
>   105 | #define HPAGE_PMD_ORDER (HPAGE_PMD_SHIFT-PAGE_SHIFT)
>       |                          ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> mm/khugepaged.c:95:5: note: in expansion of macro 'HPAGE_PMD_ORDER'
>    95 | #if HPAGE_PMD_ORDER < 16
>       |     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> Introduced by commit
> 
>   adcc4e193b6b ("mm/khugepaged: use minimal bits to store num page < HPAGE_PMD_NR")
> 
> So HPAGE_PMD_ORDER is not a constant on ppc64 ...
> 
> I applied this hack for today (which makes it build without warning and
> puts things more or less back as they were for ppo64).
> 
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2022 19:49:40 +1000
> Subject: [PATCH] fix up for "mm/khugepaged: use minimal bits to store num page < HPAGE_PMD_NR"
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> ---
>  mm/khugepaged.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/khugepaged.c b/mm/khugepaged.c
> index 28cb8429dad4..d8e388106322 100644
> --- a/mm/khugepaged.c
> +++ b/mm/khugepaged.c
> @@ -92,7 +92,9 @@ struct collapse_control {
>  	bool is_khugepaged;
>  
>  	/* Num pages scanned per node */
> -#if HPAGE_PMD_ORDER < 16
> +#if defined(CONFIG_PPC64)
> +	u32 node_load[MAX_NUMNODES];
> +#elif HPAGE_PMD_ORDER < 16
>  	u16 node_load[MAX_NUMNODES];
>  #else
>  	u32 node_load[MAX_NUMNODES];
> -- 
> 2.35.1
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell

Thanks Stephen, and apologies here. I thought I had taken a look at all archs
(just inspection, I didn't attempt to build them all) - but seems like I missed
this one..

I'm fine with the change, though I could see the argument that this is getting a
little complicated to save what is likely a few bits in the common case.
Appreciate the fix.

Reviewed-by: Zach O'Keefe <zokeefe@...gle.com>

Best,
Zach