From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752425AbdHEArI (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 4 Aug 2017 20:47:08 -0400
Received: from mga07.intel.com ([134.134.136.100]:61936 "EHLO mga07.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751930AbdHEArG (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 4 Aug 2017 20:47:06 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.41,322,1498546800"; 
   d="scan'208";a="115819559"
From: "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Juergen Gross" <jgross@suse.com>, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] IPI: Avoid to use 2 cache lines for one call_single_data
References: <20170802085220.4315-1-ying.huang@intel.com>
        <20170802085220.4315-4-ying.huang@intel.com>
        <1501669138.25002.20.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
        <87d18d122e.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
        <20170803085752.yrqox3kwrvkj544a@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
        <87wp6kyvda.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
        <87mv7gytmk.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
        <20170804092754.hyhbhyr2r4gonpu4@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2017 08:47:02 +0800
In-Reply-To: <20170804092754.hyhbhyr2r4gonpu4@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
        (Peter Zijlstra's message of "Fri, 4 Aug 2017 11:27:54 +0200")
Message-ID: <87d18alu2h.fsf@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:

> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 10:05:55AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> writes:
>> > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:
>
>> >> +struct __call_single_data {
>> >>  	struct llist_node llist;
>> >>  	smp_call_func_t func;
>> >>  	void *info;
>> >>  	unsigned int flags;
>> >>  };
>> >>  
>> >> +typedef struct __call_single_data call_single_data_t
>> >> +	__aligned(sizeof(struct __call_single_data));
>> >> +
>> >
>> > Another requirement of the alignment is that it should be the power of
>> > 2.  Otherwise, for example, if someone adds a field to struct, so that
>> > the size becomes 40 on x86_64.  The alignment should be 64 instead of
>> > 40.
>> 
>> Thanks Aaron, he reminded me that there is a roundup_pow_of_two().  So
>> the typedef could be,
>> 
>> typedef struct __call_single_data call_single_data_t
>> 	__aligned(roundup_pow_of_two(sizeof(struct __call_single_data));
>> 
>
> Yes, that would take away the requirement to play padding games with the
> struct. Then again, maybe its a good thing to have to be explicit about
> it.
>
> If you see:
>
> struct __call_single_data {
> 	struct llist_node llist;
> 	smp_call_func_t func;
> 	void *info
> 	int flags;
> 	void *extra_field;
>
> 	unsigned long __padding[3]; /* make align work */
> };
>
> that makes it very clear what is going on. In any case, we can delay
> this part because the current structure is a power-of-2 for both ILP32
> and LP64. So only the person growing this will have to deal with it ;-)

Yes.  That looks good.  So you will prepare the final patch?  Or you
hope me to do that?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying