[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230821043744.GA73328@system.software.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 13:37:44 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul@...com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel_team@...ynix.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
will@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
joel@...lfernandes.org, sashal@...nel.org, daniel.vetter@...ll.ch,
duyuyang@...il.com, johannes.berg@...el.com, tj@...nel.org,
tytso@....edu, david@...morbit.com, amir73il@...il.com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, kernel-team@....com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...nel.org,
minchan@...nel.org, hannes@...xchg.org, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
sj@...nel.org, jglisse@...hat.com, dennis@...nel.org, cl@...ux.com,
penberg@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
ngupta@...are.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
josef@...icpanda.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, jack@...e.cz, jlayton@...nel.org,
dan.j.williams@...el.com, hch@...radead.org, djwong@...nel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, rodrigosiqueiramelo@...il.com,
melissa.srw@...il.com, hamohammed.sa@...il.com,
42.hyeyoo@...il.com, chris.p.wilson@...el.com,
gwan-gyeong.mun@...el.com, max.byungchul.park@...il.com,
boqun.feng@...il.com, longman@...hat.com, hdanton@...a.com,
her0gyugyu@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v10 08/25] dept: Apply
sdt_might_sleep_{start,end}() to PG_{locked,writeback} wait
On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 05:09:44AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 12:46:20PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > @@ -1219,6 +1220,9 @@ static inline bool folio_trylock_flag(struct folio *folio, int bit_nr,
> > /* How many times do we accept lock stealing from under a waiter? */
> > int sysctl_page_lock_unfairness = 5;
> >
> > +static struct dept_map __maybe_unused PG_locked_map = DEPT_MAP_INITIALIZER(PG_locked_map, NULL);
> > +static struct dept_map __maybe_unused PG_writeback_map = DEPT_MAP_INITIALIZER(PG_writeback_map, NULL);
>
> Hmm, why are these "maybe unused"? *digs*. Ah. Because
> sdt_might_sleep_start() becomes a no-op macro if DEPT is disabled.
>
> OK, the right way to handle this is
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEPT
> #define DEPT_MAP(name) static struct dept_map name = \
> DEPT_MAP_INITIALIZER(name, NULL)
> #else
> #define DEPT_MAP(name) /* */
> #endif
>
> And now DEPT takes up no space if disabled.
Currently:
#if !defined(CONFIG_DEPT)
struct dept_map { };
#endif
So I think it doesn't take space at all. Do you think I still need to
introduce e.g. DEPT_MAP()? Then I will. Thank you!
Byungchul
> /* */; is a somewhat unusual thing to see, but since this must work at
> top level, we can't use "do { } while (0)" like we usually do. Given
> where else this is likely to be used, i don't think it's going to be
> a problem ...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists