[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4eea9138-3853-457d-9113-e3caa7f00437@lucifer.local>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2025 19:18:56 +0000
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...nel.org>,
"Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
oliver.sang@...el.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: avoid use of BIT() macro for initialising VMA flags
On Fri, Dec 05, 2025 at 06:43:42PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2025 17:50:37 +0000
> Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> > Commit 2b6a3f061f11 ("mm: declare VMA flags by bit") significantly changed
> > how VMA flags are declared, utilising an enum of VMA bit values and
> > ifdef-fery VM_xxx flag declarations via macro.
> >
> > As part of this change, it uses INIT_VM_FLAG() to define VM_xxx flags from
> > the newly introduced VMA bit numbers.
> >
> > However, use of this macro results in apparently unfortunate macro
> > expansion and resulted in a performance degradation.This appears to be due
> > to the (__force int), which is required for the sparse typechecking to
> > work.
>
> Does sparse complain if you just add 0? As in:
> #define INIT_VM_FLAG(name) BIT(VMA_ ## name ## _BIT + 0u)
>
> That should change the type without affecting what BIT() expands to.
Thanks, checked that and unfortunately that doesn't satisfy sparse :)
I don't think it's too crazy to use 1UL << here, just very frustrating (TM)
that this is an issue.
<insert rant about C macros here>
Cheers, Lorenzo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists