Re: [PATCH 09/30] x86_64: ifdef out struct thread_struct::ip

[Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@kernel.org>]

On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 11:20 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jaswinder Singh Rajput <jaswinder@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2009-04-09 at 20:53 -0700, Matt Helsley wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 06:35:22AM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > > > struct thread_struct::ip isn't used on x86_64, struct pt_regs::ip is used
> > > > instead. 
> > > > 
> > > > kgdb should be reading 0, but I can't check it.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > 
> > > >  arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h |    2 ++
> > > >  arch/x86/kernel/kgdb.c           |    2 +-
> > > >  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
> > > > @@ -421,7 +421,9 @@ struct thread_struct {
> > > >  	unsigned short		fsindex;
> > > >  	unsigned short		gsindex;
> > > >  #endif
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> > > >  	unsigned long		ip;
> > > > +#endif
> > > >  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > > >  	unsigned long		fs;
> > > >  #endif
> > > 
> > > Do these make struct thread_struct behave better in cachelines (smaller,
> > > less aliasing)? Can we really fit more in the slab du jour?
> > > 
> > > Otherwise it seems like we're littering these structs with #ifdefs
> > > and not really saving anything. If these #ifdefs don't save any space why not 
> > > just put in a comment:
> > > 
> > > >  	unsigned long		ip; /* Used only on i386 */
> > > 
> > > Or maybe even:
> > > 
> > > 	union {
> > > 	  	unsigned long		ip; /* Used only on i386 */
> > > 	  	unsigned long		fs; /* Used only on x86_64 */
> > > 	};
> > > 
> > 
> > Can we do it like this:
> >   	unsigned long		ip_fs; /* ip: i386, fs: x86_64 */
> > 
> > I am using same variable for both cases, or we can use some better 
> > name than ip_fs. I am assuming either it is i386 or x86_64 machine 
> > ;-)
> 
> This is the least clean variant amongst all the suggestions.
> 

Yes, this was a wakeful call for you.

I send dozen of emails in last 24 hours to you for your feedback.

I do not need reply for this email. Please send reply for other emails.

Thanks,

--
JSR