lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 01/15] mm: poison struct page for ptlock

* Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > yuck. What is the real problem btw? AFAICS there's enough space for a
> > > > 2-word spinlock in struct page for pagetables.
> > >
> > > Yes. There is no real problem. But my patch offends good taste.
> >
> > Isn't it going to overrun page.lru with CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK?
>
> No. There is just one case where it would,
> so in that case split ptlock is disabled by mm/Kconfig's
> # PA-RISC 7xxx's debug spinlock_t is too large for 32-bit struct page.
>
> default "4096" if PARISC && DEBUG_SPINLOCK && !PA20
>
> Of course, someone may extend spinlock debugging info tomorrow; but
> when they do, presumably they'll try it out, and hit the BUILD_BUG_ON.
> They'll then probably want to extend the suppression in mm/Kconfig.

why not do the union thing so that struct page grows automatically as
new fields are added? It is quite bad design to introduce a hard limit
like that. The only sizing concern is to make sure that the common
.configs dont increase the size of struct page, but otherwise why not
allow a larger struct page - it's for debugging only.

Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-11-10 16:02    [W:1.073 / U:0.416 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site