[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <eb1a4170-34e2-2db7-26a1-448e06f3a58b@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2022 15:04:36 +0800
From: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
CC: <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <osalvador@...e.de>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/16] mm/page_alloc: use helper macro SZ_1{K,M}
On 2022/9/10 3:44, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 01:34:52PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 09.09.22 11:24, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>> @@ -9055,7 +9055,7 @@ void *__init alloc_large_system_hash(const char *tablename,
>>> /* It isn't necessary when PAGE_SIZE >= 1MB */
>>
>> Huh, how could we ever have that. Smells like dead code.
>>
>>> if (PAGE_SHIFT < 20)
>>
>> What about adjusting that as well? The it exactly matches the comment
>>
>> if (PAGE_SIZE >= SZ_1M)
Looks good. Will do it in next version.
>>
>>> - numentries = round_up(numentries, (1<<20)/PAGE_SIZE);
>>> + numentries = round_up(numentries, SZ_1M / PAGE_SIZE);
>
> The git history provides some clues here. See a7e833182a92.
> But we do have an architecture which has ...
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_PAGE_SIZE_1MB
> #define PAGE_SHIFT 20
> #define HEXAGON_L1_PTE_SIZE __HVM_PDE_S_1MB
> #endif
>
> I don't think it's an especially common config.
Maybe commit a7e833182a92 fixed a theoretical bug. But IMHO, it might be better to keep the code even
if no architecture defines PAGE_SIZE >= 1MB. These codes would be eliminated at compiling time. And
once there're architectures with PAGE_SIZE >= 1MB, we still work. Any thoughts? Thanks both.
Thanks,
Miaohe Lin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists