Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 24 Oct 2017 14:38:19 +0300 | | From | "Kirill A. Shutemov" <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/6] Boot-time switching between 4- and 5-level paging for 4.15, Part 1 |
| |
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 11:40:40AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@shutemov.name> wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 02:40:14PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > * Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@shutemov.name> wrote: > > > > > > > > Making a variable that 'looks' like a constant macro dynamic in a rare Kconfig > > > > > scenario is asking for trouble. > > > > > > > > We expect boot-time page mode switching to be enabled in kernel of next > > > > generation enterprise distros. It shoudn't be that rare. > > > > > > My point remains even with not-so-rare Kconfig dependency. > > > > I don't follow how introducing new variable that depends on Kconfig option > > would help with the situation. > > A new, properly named variable or function (max_physmem_bits or > max_physmem_bits()) that is not all uppercase would make it abundantly clear that > it is not a constant but a runtime value.
Would we need to rename every uppercase macros that would depend on max_physmem_bits()? Like MAXMEM.
> > We would end up with inverse situation: people would use MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS > > where the new variable need to be used and we will in the same situation. > > It should result in sub-optimal resource allocations worst-case, right?
I don't think it's the worst case.
For instance, virt_addr_valid() depends indirectly on it:
virt_addr_valid() __virt_addr_valid() phys_addr_valid() boot_cpu_data.x86_phys_bits (initialized with MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS)
virt_addr_valid() is used in things like implementation /dev/kmem.
To me it's far more risky than occasional build breakage for CONFIG_X86_5LEVEL=y.
> We could also rename it to MAX_POSSIBLE_PHYSMEM_BITS to make it clear that the > real number of bits can be lower.
If you still insist, I'll rework code as you describe, but I disagree that's the best way to go.
We also need to make other upper case macros dynamic, like PGDIR_SHIFT or PTRS_PER_P4D. Reworking them in the same would be *far* more complex as they (and their derivatives) used heavily in generic code.
To me it's a lot of code for a small to none benefit.
P.S. Could you please take a look on x86/boot/compressed/64 changes?
-- Kirill A. Shutemov
|  |