[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZGxYZlLoADBWktT8@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 23:08:38 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
"Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...y.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] mm: vmalloc: Add a per-CPU-zone infrastructure
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 01:08:44PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> +#define fbl(z, i, m) z->fbl[i].m
> +#define fbl_root(z, i) fbl(z, i, root)
> +#define fbl_head(z, i) fbl(z, i, head)
> +
> +#define fbl_lock(z, i) spin_lock(&fbl(z, i, lock))
> +#define fbl_unlock(z, i) spin_unlock(&fbl(z, i, lock))
Even if it is just temporary, I don't think adding these wrappers
make much sense.
> +struct cpu_vmap_zone {
> + /*
> + * FREE, BUSY, LAZY bookkeeping data of this CPU zone.
> + */
> + struct {
> + struct rb_root root;
> + struct list_head head;
> + spinlock_t lock;
> + } fbl[NFBL];
Maybe replace NFBL with something longer and more descriptive?
But also in general it feels like this should be folded into a patch
doing real work. As-is it doesn't look very useful.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists