On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 03:43:13 +0100
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 06:45:35AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > >> include/linux/mm_types.h:274:1: error: static_assert failed due to requirement '__builtin_offsetof(struct page, lru) == __builtin_offsetof(struct folio, lru)' "offsetof(struct page, lru) == offsetof(struct folio, lru)"  
> >    FOLIO_MATCH(lru, lru);
> >    include/linux/mm_types.h:272:2: note: expanded from macro 'FOLIO_MATCH'
> >            static_assert(offsetof(struct page, pg) == offsetof(struct folio, fl))  
> 
> Well, this is interesting.  pahole reports:
> 
> struct page {
>         long unsigned int          flags;                /*     0     4 */
>         /* XXX 4 bytes hole, try to pack */
>         union {
>                 struct {
>                         struct list_head lru;            /*     8     8 */
> ...
> struct folio {
>         union {
>                 struct {
>                         long unsigned int flags;         /*     0     4 */
>                         struct list_head lru;            /*     4     8 */
> 
> so this assert has absolutely done its job.
> 
> But why has this assert triggered?  Why is struct page layout not what
> we thought it was?  Turns out it's the dma_addr added in 2019 by commit
> c25fff7171be ("mm: add dma_addr_t to struct page").  On this particular
> config, it's 64-bit, and ppc32 requires alignment to 64-bit.  So
> the whole union gets moved out by 4 bytes.

Argh, good that you are catching this!

> Unfortunately, we can't just fix this by putting an 'unsigned long pad'
> in front of it.  It still aligns the entire union to 8 bytes, and then
> it skips another 4 bytes after the pad.
> 
> We can fix it like this ...
> 
> +++ b/include/linux/mm_types.h
> @@ -96,11 +96,12 @@ struct page {
>                         unsigned long private;
>                 };
>                 struct {        /* page_pool used by netstack */
> +                       unsigned long _page_pool_pad;

I'm fine with this pad.  Matteo is currently proposing[1] to add a 32-bit
value after @dma_addr, and he could use this area instead.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20210409223801.104657-3-mcroce@linux.microsoft.com/

When adding/changing this, we need to make sure that it doesn't overlap
member @index, because network stack use/check page_is_pfmemalloc().
As far as my calculations this is safe to add.  I always try to keep an
eye out for this, but I wonder if we could have a build check like yours.


>                         /**
>                          * @dma_addr: might require a 64-bit value even on
>                          * 32-bit architectures.
>                          */
> -                       dma_addr_t dma_addr;
> +                       dma_addr_t dma_addr __packed;
>                 };
>                 struct {        /* slab, slob and slub */
>                         union {
> 
> but I don't know if GCC is smart enough to realise that dma_addr is now
> on an 8 byte boundary and it can use a normal instruction to access it,
> or whether it'll do something daft like use byte loads to access it.
> 
> We could also do:
> 
> +                       dma_addr_t dma_addr __packed __aligned(sizeof(void *));
> 
> and I see pahole, at least sees this correctly:
> 
>                 struct {
>                         long unsigned int _page_pool_pad; /*     4     4 */
>                         dma_addr_t dma_addr __attribute__((__aligned__(4))); /*     8     8 */
>                 } __attribute__((__packed__)) __attribute__((__aligned__(4)));  
> 
> This presumably affects any 32-bit architecture with a 64-bit phys_addr_t
> / dma_addr_t.  Advice, please?

I'm not sure that the 32-bit behavior is with 64-bit (dma) addrs.

I don't have any 32-bit boards with 64-bit DMA.  Cc. Ivan, wasn't your
board (572x ?) 32-bit with driver 'cpsw' this case (where Ivan added
XDP+page_pool) ?

-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer