From: Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders@imgtec.com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>
CC: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/5] LLVMLinux: Correct size_index table before
 replacing the bootstrap kmem_cache_node.
Thread-Topic: [PATCH 1/5] LLVMLinux: Correct size_index table before
 replacing the bootstrap kmem_cache_node.
Thread-Index: AQHQP7aUH+eb/1DBC0ORw+aLnTtUHpzg43OAgAANyJCAAAV+AIAABxtw
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 21:08:33 +0000
Message-ID: <E484D272A3A61B4880CDF2E712E9279F4591C476@hhmail02.hh.imgtec.org>
References: <1422970639-7922-1-git-send-email-daniel.sanders@imgtec.com>
	<1422970639-7922-2-git-send-email-daniel.sanders@imgtec.com>
	<54D27403.90000@iki.fi>
	<E484D272A3A61B4880CDF2E712E9279F4591C3EC@hhmail02.hh.imgtec.org>
 <CAOJsxLF453qWJitGGjn+gMcJwXdXo4wLtmGzhVYJ3j5xOYNHWg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOJsxLF453qWJitGGjn+gMcJwXdXo4wLtmGzhVYJ3j5xOYNHWg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Length: 1410
Lines: 28

> -----Original Message-----
> From: penberg@gmail.com [mailto:penberg@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Pekka Enberg
> Sent: 04 February 2015 20:42
> To: Daniel Sanders
> Cc: Christoph Lameter; David Rientjes; Joonsoo Kim; Andrew Morton; linux-
> mm@kvack.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] LLVMLinux: Correct size_index table before
> replacing the bootstrap kmem_cache_node.
> 
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Daniel Sanders
> <Daniel.Sanders@imgtec.com> wrote:
> > I don't believe the bug to be LLVM specific but GCC doesn't normally
> encounter the problem. I haven't been able to identify exactly what GCC is
> doing better (probably inlining) but it seems that GCC is managing to
> optimize  to the point that it eliminates the problematic allocations. This
> theory is supported by the fact that GCC can be made to fail in the same way
> by changing inline, __inline, __inline__, and __always_inline in
> include/linux/compiler-gcc.h such that they don't actually inline things.
> 
> OK, makes sense. Please include that explanation in the changelog and
> drop use proper "slab" prefix instead of the confusing "LLVMLinux"
> prefix in the subject line.
> 
> - Pekka

Sure. I've just updated the patch with those changes.
????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay?ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m????????????I?