Re: [PATCH 6/9] XArray: internal node is a xa_node when it is bigger than XA_ZERO_ENTRY

Wei Yang
2020-03-31T13:40:28Z

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 05:06:49PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:20:13PM +0000, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 07:27:08AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> >On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 02:13:50PM +0000, Wei Yang wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 06:49:03AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> >> >On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 01:45:19PM +0000, Wei Yang wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 05:50:06AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> >> >> >On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:36:40PM +0000, Wei Yang wrote:
>> >> >> >> As the comment mentioned, we reserved several ranges of internal node
>> >> >> >> for tree maintenance, 0-62, 256, 257. This means a node bigger than
>> >> >> >> XA_ZERO_ENTRY is a normal node.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The checked on XA_ZERO_ENTRY seems to be more meaningful.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >257-1023 are also reserved, they just aren't used yet. XA_ZERO_ENTRY
>> >> >> >is not guaranteed to be the largest reserved entry.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Then why we choose 4096?
>> >> >
>> >> >Because 4096 is the smallest page size supported by Linux, so we're
>> >> >guaranteed that anything less than 4096 is not a valid pointer.
>> >>
>>
>> So you want to say, the 4096 makes sure XArray will not store an address in
>> first page? If this is the case, I have two suggestions:
>>
>> * use PAGE_SIZE would be more verbose?
>
>But also incorrect, because it'll be different on different architectures.
>It's 4096. That's all.
>
>> * a node is an internal entry, do we need to compare with xa_mk_internal()
>> instead?
>
>No. 4096 is better because it's a number which is easily expressible in
>many CPU instruction sets. 4094 is much less likely to be an easy number
>to encode.
>
>> >(it is slightly out of date; the XArray actually supports storing unaligned
>> >pointers now, but that's not relevant to this discussion)
>>
>> Ok, maybe this document need to update.
>
>Did you want to send a patch?

I am not clear how it supports unaligned pointers. So maybe not now.

Actually, I still not get the point between page size and valid pointer. Why a
valid pointer couldn't be less than 4096? The first page in address space is
handled differently? Maybe I miss some point. I'd appreciate it if you'd share
some light.

Thanks
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me