From: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] mm: slab: separate slab_page from 'struct page'
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:21:04 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52A793D0.4020306@sr71.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <00000142de866123-cf1406b5-b7a3-4688-b46f-80e338a622a1-000000@email.amazonses.com>
On 12/10/2013 02:00 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>> > We _need_ to share fields when the structure is handed between different
>> > subsystems and it needs to be consistent in both places. For slab page
>> > at least, the only data that actually gets used consistently is
>> > page->flags. It seems silly to bend over backwards just to share a
>> > single bitfield.
> If you get corruption in one field then you need to figure out which other
> subsystem could have accessed that field. Its not a single bitfield. There
> are numerous relationships between the fields in struct page.
I'm not saying that every 'struct page' user should get their own
complete structure. I'm just saying that the *slabs* should get their
own structure. Let's go through it field by field for the "normal"
'struct page' without debugging options:
page->flags: shared by everybody, needs to be consistent for things
like memory error handling
mapping: unioned over by s_mem for slab
index: unioned over by freelist for sl[oua]b
_count: unioned over by lots of stuff by sl[oua]b
lru: unioned over by lots of stuff by sl[oua]b, including another
list_head called 'list' which blk-mq.c is now using.
private: opaque storage anyway, but unioned over by sl[au]b
See? *EVERYTHING* is overridden by at least one of the sl?b allocators
except ->flags. In other words, there *ARE* no relationships when it
comes to the sl?bs, except for page->flags.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] mm: slab: separate slab_page from 'struct page'
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:21:04 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52A793D0.4020306@sr71.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <00000142de866123-cf1406b5-b7a3-4688-b46f-80e338a622a1-000000@email.amazonses.com>
On 12/10/2013 02:00 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>> > We _need_ to share fields when the structure is handed between different
>> > subsystems and it needs to be consistent in both places. For slab page
>> > at least, the only data that actually gets used consistently is
>> > page->flags. It seems silly to bend over backwards just to share a
>> > single bitfield.
> If you get corruption in one field then you need to figure out which other
> subsystem could have accessed that field. Its not a single bitfield. There
> are numerous relationships between the fields in struct page.
I'm not saying that every 'struct page' user should get their own
complete structure. I'm just saying that the *slabs* should get their
own structure. Let's go through it field by field for the "normal"
'struct page' without debugging options:
page->flags: shared by everybody, needs to be consistent for things
like memory error handling
mapping: unioned over by s_mem for slab
index: unioned over by freelist for sl[oua]b
_count: unioned over by lots of stuff by sl[oua]b
lru: unioned over by lots of stuff by sl[oua]b, including another
list_head called 'list' which blk-mq.c is now using.
private: opaque storage anyway, but unioned over by sl[au]b
See? *EVERYTHING* is overridden by at least one of the sl?b allocators
except ->flags. In other words, there *ARE* no relationships when it
comes to the sl?bs, except for page->flags.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-11 13:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-10 20:46 [PATCH] [RFC] mm: slab: separate slab_page from 'struct page' Dave Hansen
2013-12-10 20:46 ` Dave Hansen
2013-12-10 21:07 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-12-10 21:07 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-12-10 21:44 ` Dave Hansen
2013-12-10 21:44 ` Dave Hansen
2013-12-10 22:00 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-12-10 22:00 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-12-10 22:21 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2013-12-10 22:21 ` Dave Hansen
2013-12-12 17:37 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-12-12 17:37 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-12-12 19:28 ` Dave Hansen
2013-12-12 19:28 ` Dave Hansen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=52A793D0.4020306@sr71.net \
--to=dave@sr71.net \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.