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

[Anshuman Khandual]

On 7/5/21 8:58 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 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?
> 

No but should an unnecessary element in a struct is dropped only if there
is a reported problem ?