Re: [PATCH 1/2] MM: Make page tables relocatable -- conditional flush (rc9)

[Ross Biro]

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  This patchset doesn't apply to the 2.6.26 queue because of the ongoing x86
>  shell game: the arch/x86/kernel/smp_??.c files were consolidated.

It's probably best to just wait until the smoke clears on 2.6.26 then.
 I'll add some comments, however I usually get in trouble for adding
too verbose comments, so I've learned to go the other way.  If you
prefer comments though, I'll add them.

>  - Must ->page_table_relocation_lock be a semaphore?  mutexes are
>   preferred.

Not any more.  It used to require a semaphore, but I can switch it
back to a mutex now.  I can even replace the mutex with an atomic
inc/dec which might be even better since it will work at interrupt
time as well.

>  - The patch adds a number of largeish inlined functions.  There's rarely
>   a need for this, and it can lead to large icache footprint which will, we
>   expect, produce slower code.

If these are the ones I'm thinking of, they are in the fast path on
page faults.  So they should be inlined.  However, I could easily
change it to a small macro or inline function and a regular function
call that would rarely be taken.  This should be a win from the icache
point of view and only a loss in a case we really don't care much
about.

>  - The patch adds a lot of macros which look like they could have been
>   implemented as inlines.  Inlines are preferred, please.  They look nicer,
>   they provide typechecking, they avoid accidental
>   multiple-reference-to-arguments bugs and they help to avoid
>   unused-variable warnings.

Here I disagree.  The only added function-like #define's I see are
either just aliasing functions, or the case when any function that
does nothing.  I guess the later could be replaced by inlines to avoid
warnings.

>  - Doing PAGE_SIZE memcpy under spin_lock_irqsave() might get a bit
>   expensive from an interrupt-latency POV.  It could (I think?) result in
>   large periods of time where interrupts are almost always disabled, which
>   might disrupt some device drivers.

Here I'm just being stupid.  There is no reason to have interrupts
disabled at this point.

>
>  - Why is this code doing spin_lock_irqsave() on page_table_lock?  The
>   rest of mm/ doesn't disable IRQs for that lock.  This implies that

Laziness.  I didn't feel like figuring this out if the irqsave was
necessary when I started, and forgot to go back and fix it later.
There is no reason.


>  - I haven't checked, but if the code is taking KM_USER0 from interrupt
>   context then that would be a bug.  Switching to KM_IRQ0 would fix that.

KM_USER0 is currently correct.  For memory hotplug, we may need to
change this in the future.


     Ross
--
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/