From: Vineet Gupta <vineet.gupta1@synopsys.com>
To: Alexey Brodkin <alexey.brodkin@synopsys.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
"linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@linaro.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"stable@vger.kernel.org" <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARC: Explicitly set ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN = 8
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 17:34:29 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e4aed55f-656b-ebec-c3e3-393714cc693e@synopsys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4881796E12491D4BB15146FE0209CE64681DB01F@DE02WEMBXB.internal.synopsys.com>
On 2/14/19 12:50 AM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
>>>>> I suspect the slab allocator should be returning 8 byte aligned addresses
>>>>> on all systems....
>>>>
>>>> why ? As I understand it is still not fool proof against the expected alignment of
>>>> inner members. There ought to be a better way to enforce all this.
>>>
>>> I agree that for ARC ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN should be at least 8.
>>
>> This issue aside, are there other reasons ? Because making it 8 on ARC is just
>> pending the eventuality for later.
>
> But that's pretty much the same for other 32-bit arches that have 64-bit atomics
> like ARM etc. From what I may see from ARM's documentation for LDREXD/SRREXD they
> require double-word alignment of data as well.
Right LLOCKD/SCONDD (64-bit exclusive load/store) needs 64-bit aligned effective
addresses for micro-arch reasons (1 vs 2 cache lines) etc.
So lets try to unpack this for me. Say we had.
struct foo {
int a;
atomic64_t b;
};
The atomic64_t (which for ARC and most others is u64 __attribute__((aligned(8))
*already ensures* that there a 4 b padding is generated by gcc (I just confirmed
with a simple test case).
#ifdef DOALIGN__
#define my_u64 __u64 __attribute__((aligned(8)))
#else
#define my_u64 __u64
#endif
struct foo on_heap;
printf(%d", &on_heap.b)
$ arc-linux-gcc -O2 test.c -DDOALIGN__ -c --save-temps
main:
mov_s r1,@on_heap+8 <----
mov_s r0,@.LC0
b @printf
W/o the alignment attribute (say normal LDD/STD)
$ arc-linux-gcc -O2 test.c -c --save-temps
main:
mov_s r1,@on_heap+4
mov_s r0,@.LC0
b @printf
So indeed your patch aligns dynamic structs to 64-bit, ensuring any embedded
aligned_u64 to be 64-bit aligned as well. Phew !
> That said if for some reason atomic64_t variable is unaligned execution on
> any (or at least most) 32-bit architectures will lead to run-time failure,
> i.e. we'll know about it and this will be fixed.
>
> And what I'm doing by that change (ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN=8 for ARC) I'm just
> working-around peculiarity of ARC ABI.
Right.
>
> Out of curiosity I checked if there're any other occurrences of "alingof(long long)"
> and there seems to be a couple of more:
> ----------------------------------->8-----------------------------
> # git grep alignof | grep "long long"
>
> ...
>
> kernel/workqueue.c:5693: WARN_ON(__alignof__(struct pool_workqueue) < __alignof__(long long));
> mm/slab.c:155:#define REDZONE_ALIGN max(BYTES_PER_WORD, __alignof__(unsigned long long))
For ARC, it will be max(4,4) so 4
for others 32-bit,it will be max(4,8)
So indeed it makes sense to change it.
> mm/slab.c:2034: if (ralign > __alignof__(unsigned long long))
> ----------------------------------->8-----------------------------
>
> Not really sure how important is "kernel/workqueue.c" part but in case of "mm/slab.c"
> shouldn't we use ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN there instead of that "not very meaningful" __alignof__(long long)?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-15 1:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-08 10:55 [PATCH] ARC: Explicitly set ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN = 8 Alexey Brodkin
2019-02-12 17:17 ` Vineet Gupta
2019-02-12 17:30 ` David Laight
2019-02-12 17:45 ` Vineet Gupta
2019-02-13 12:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-13 14:13 ` David Laight
2019-02-13 23:23 ` Vineet Gupta
2019-02-14 8:50 ` Alexey Brodkin
2019-02-14 10:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-15 1:34 ` Vineet Gupta [this message]
2019-02-18 8:53 ` Alexey Brodkin
2019-02-19 23:30 ` Vineet Gupta
2019-02-14 10:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-14 10:44 ` Alexey Brodkin
2019-02-14 11:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-14 12:05 ` Alexey Brodkin
2019-02-14 12:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-14 14:14 ` David Laight
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=e4aed55f-656b-ebec-c3e3-393714cc693e@synopsys.com \
--to=vineet.gupta1@synopsys.com \
--cc=David.Laight@ACULAB.COM \
--cc=alexey.brodkin@synopsys.com \
--cc=arnd.bergmann@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).