Re: [PATCH V2] mm/thp: Make ALLOC_SPLIT_PTLOCKS dependent on USE_SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 08:57:54AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> 
> On 7/1/21 6:27 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 01, 2021 at 10:51:27AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/20/21 4:47 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >>> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 01:03:06PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> >>>> Split ptlocks need not be defined and allocated unless they are being used.
> >>>> ALLOC_SPLIT_PTLOCKS is inherently dependent on USE_SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS. This
> >>>> just makes it explicit and clear. While here drop the spinlock_t element
> >>>> from the struct page when USE_SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS is not enabled.
> >>>
> >>> I didn't spot this email yesterday.  I'm not a fan.  Isn't struct page
> >>> already complicated enough without adding another ifdef to it?  Surely
> >>> there's a better way than this.
> >>
> >> This discussion thread just got dropped off the radar, sorry about it.
> >> None of the spinlock_t elements are required unless split ptlocks are
> >> in use. I understand your concern regarding yet another #ifdef in the
> >> struct page definition. But this change is simple and minimal. Do you
> >> have any other particular alternative in mind which I could explore ?
> > 
> > Do nothing?  I don't understand what problem you're trying to solve.
> 
> Currently there is an element (spinlock_t ptl) in the struct page for page
> table lock. Although a struct page based spinlock is not even required in
> case USE_SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS evaluates to be false. Is not that something to
> be fixed here i.e drop the splinlock_t element if not required ?

No?  It doesn't actually cause any problems, does it?