From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
linux-kbuild <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Make SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS depend on the existence of NR_CPUS
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 09:52:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c10d3f92-e4ec-4a56-b78e-acb68865a11c@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdWfsgnCRLhCkvJBn8Prdd4M=HvwtsPT0BeRPtA-nFHzYQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 24.09.24 09:45, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Günter,
>
> CC kbuild
>
> I have two comments...
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 1:52 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>> On 9/23/24 15:08, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On 9/23/24 08:23, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 23.09.24 16:25, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>>> SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS already depends on "NR_CPUS >= 4", but that evaluates
>>>>> to true if there is no NR_CPUS configuration option (such as for m68k).
>>>>> This results in CONFIG_SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS=y for mac_defconfig.
>>>>> This in turn causes the m68k "q800" machine to crash in qemu.
>
> Should this be fixed in Kconfig (too)?
>
>>>> Oh, that's why my compile tests still worked ... I even removed the additional NR_CPUS check, assuming it's not required ...
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for debugging and fixing!
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently it wasn't that simple :-(. 0-day reports a build failure
>>> with s390 builds.
>>>
>>> arch/s390/mm/gmap.c:357:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'pmd_pgtable_page'.
>>>
>>> Turns out that
>>> depends on NR_CPUS && NR_CPUS >= 4
>>>
>>> doesn't work and disables SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS even if NR_CPUS _is_ defined.
>>> I have no idea how to declare the dependency correctly.
>>> Sorry, I did not expect that.
>>
>> The only solution I found was to define NR_CPUS for m68k. That seems to be
>> the only architecture not defining it, so hopefully that is an acceptable
>> solution. I'll send v2 of the patch shortly.
>
> My first thought was to agree, as m68k is indeed the only architecture
> that does not define NR_CPUS. Upon closer look, most architectures
> have NR_CPUS depend on SMP, hence I assume the issue could happen for
> those too (although I didn't manage to create such a config on anything
I recall that I played the same thing, convincing me that having no
CONFIG_NR_CPUS on !SMP would actually do the right thing. Apparently it doesn't
for m68k at least.
> but m68k)? So the simple solution would be to add a dependency on
> SMP to SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS.
That will probably work for now. CONFIG_NR_CPUS should be cleaned up at some point
to sort out the FIXME I commented in v2. Having kconfig set CONFIG_NR_CPUS=1 without
SMP would be easiest, but it's probably not that easy.
>
> BTW, the list of excluded architectures looks fragile to me:
>
> config SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS
> def_bool y
> depends on MMU
> depends on NR_CPUS >= 4
> depends on !ARM || CPU_CACHE_VIPT
> depends on !PARISC || PA20
> depends on !SPARC32
>
> If this can't be handled in a generic way, perhaps this should be
> changed from opt-out to opt-in (i.e. select gate symbol in arch-specific
> Kconfig)?
Yes, as stated in my commit:
More cleanups would be reasonable (like the arch-specific "depends on" for
CONFIG_SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS), but we'll leave that for another day.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-24 7:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-23 14:25 Guenter Roeck
2024-09-23 15:23 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-09-23 22:08 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-09-23 23:52 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-09-24 7:45 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2024-09-24 7:52 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2024-09-24 14:16 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-09-23 21:09 ` kernel test robot
2024-09-23 21:51 ` kernel test robot
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=c10d3f92-e4ec-4a56-b78e-acb68865a11c@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=masahiroy@kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox