Re: [PATCH] mm: create a separate slab for page->ptl allocation
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Wed Nov 06 2013 - 09:30:58 EST
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 03:21:55PM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 10:31:31AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:13:11AM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > I would like to get rid of __ptlock_alloc()/__ptlock_free() too, but I
> > > don't see a way within C: we need to know sizeof(spinlock_t) on
> > > preprocessor stage.
> > >
> > > We can have a hack on kbuild level: write small helper program to find out
> > > sizeof(spinlock_t) before start building and turn it into define.
> > > But it's overkill from my POV. And cross-compilation will be a fun.
> > Ah, I just remembered, we have such a thing!
> > @@ -1354,7 +1356,7 @@ static inline bool ptlock_init(struct page *page)
> > * slab code uses page->slab_cache and page->first_page (for tail
> > * pages), which share storage with page->ptl.
> > */
> > - VM_BUG_ON(page->ptl);
> > + VM_BUG_ON(*(unsigned long *)&page->ptl);
> Huh? Why not direct cast to unsigned long?
> VM_BUG_ON((unsigned long)page->ptl);
I tried, GCC didn't dig that. I think because spinlock_t is a composite
type and you cannot cast that to a primitive type.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/