From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1757333AbYJVSZ3@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757333AbYJVSZ3 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:25:29 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753360AbYJVSZP
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:25:15 -0400
Received: from nlpi053.sbcis.sbc.com ([207.115.36.82]:37088 "EHLO
	nlpi053.prodigy.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752630AbYJVSZN (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:25:13 -0400
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:24:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
X-X-Sender: cl@quilx.com
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] SLUB - define OO_ macro instead of hardcoded numbers
In-Reply-To: <20081022181556.GM9639@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0810221123150.17454@quilx.com>
References: <20081022161836.GG9639@localhost> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0810220926130.7633@quilx.com>
 <20081022163530.GH9639@localhost> <20081022165354.GI9639@localhost>
 <20081022172103.GJ9639@localhost> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0810221037320.7633@quilx.com>
 <48FF6800.20705@cs.helsinki.fi> <20081022175827.GL9639@localhost>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0810221110060.27088@quilx.com> <20081022181556.GM9639@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: -2.4
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:

> [Christoph Lameter - Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:10:56AM -0700]
>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>>
>>> +#define OO_SHIFT	16
>>> +#define OO_MASK		((1 << OO_SHIFT) - 1)
>>> +#define MAX_OBJS_PER_PAGE	65535 /* see struct page.objects */
>>
>> This is == OO_MASK right? Otherwise things will break when we change
>> OO_SHIFT.
>>
>
> Yes, I set it 65535 directly to distinguish it from OO_MASK
> meaning not value and point to page.objects since they are
> u16. Which meant that is the point where all limits start.
> So it we set OO_SHIFT to say 14 it will not be a problem
> but if we exceed 16 bits it will break SLUB. Am I right?
> (I become scratching the head :)

If you set it > 16 then the size of the field in struct page is violated.

So

#define MAX_OBJ_PER_PAGE MIN(1 << bits_in(page.objects) - 1, OO_MASK)

?