linux-m68k.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>
To: "Finn Thain" <fthain@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: "Geert Uytterhoeven" <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Boqun Feng" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
	"Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Linux-Arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org, "Lance Yang" <lance.yang@linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 2/3] atomic: Specify alignment for atomic_t and atomic64_t
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 08:35:55 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <e02f861b-706c-4f6d-bded-002601da954a@app.fastmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ec2982e3-2996-918e-f406-32f67a0decfe@linux-m68k.org>

On Tue, Sep 30, 2025, at 04:18, Finn Thain wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2025, I wrote:
>> 
>> ... there's still some kmem cache or other allocator somewhere that has 
>> produced some misaligned path and dentry structures. So we get 
>> misaligned atomics somewhere in the VFS and TTY layers. I was unable to 
>> find those allocations.
>> 
>
> It turned out that the problem wasn't dynamic allocations, it was a local 
> variable in the core locking code (kernel/locking/rwsem.c): a misaligned 
> long used with an atomic operation (cmpxchg). To get natural alignment for 
> 64-bit quantities, I had to align other local variables as well, such as 
> the one in ktime_get_real_ts64_mg() that's used with 
> atomic64_try_cmpxchg(). The atomic_t branch in my github repo has the 
> patches I wrote for that.

It looks like the variable you get the warning for is not
even the atomic64_t but the 'old' argument to atomic64_try_cmpxchg(),
at least in some of the cases you found if not all of them.

I don't see where why there is a requirement to have that
aligned at all, even if we do require the atomic64_t to
be naturally aligned, and I would expect the same warning
to hit on x86-32 and the other architectures with 4-byte
alignment of u64 variable on stack and .data.

> To silence the misalignment WARN from CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC, for 64-bit 
> atomic operations, for my small m68k .config, it was also necesary to 
> increase ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN to 8. However, I'm not advocating a 
> ARCH_SLAB_MINALIGN increase, as that wastes memory.

Have you tried to quantify the memory waste here? I assume
that most slab allocations are already 8-byte aligned, at
least kmalloc() with size>4, while custom caches are usually
done for larger structures where an extra average of 2 bytes
per allocation may not be that bad.

> diff --git a/include/linux/instrumented.h b/include/linux/instrumented.h
> index 402a999a0d6b..cd569a87c0a8 100644
> --- a/include/linux/instrumented.h
> +++ b/include/linux/instrumented.h
> @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ static __always_inline void 
> instrument_atomic_read(const volatile void *v, size_
>  {
>  	kasan_check_read(v, size);
>  	kcsan_check_atomic_read(v, size);
> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC) && ((unsigned long)v & 
> (size - 1)));
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC) && ((unsigned long)v & 
> (size - 1) & 3));
>  }

What is the alignment of stack variables on m68k? E.g. if you
have a function with two local variables, would that still
be able to trigger the check?

int f(atomic64_t *a)
{
     u16 pad;
     u64 old;
     
     g(&pad);
     atomic64_try_cmpxchg(a, &old, 0);
}

Since there is nothing telling the compiler that
the 'old' argument to atomic*_try_cmpcxchg() needs to
be naturally aligned, maybe that check should be changed
to only test for the ABI-guaranteed alignment? I think
that would still be needed on x86-32.
 
      Arnd

diff --git a/include/linux/atomic/atomic-instrumented.h b/include/linux/atomic/atomic-instrumented.h
index 9409a6ddf3e0..e57763a889bd 100644
--- a/include/linux/atomic/atomic-instrumented.h
+++ b/include/linux/atomic/atomic-instrumented.h
@@ -1276,7 +1276,7 @@ atomic_try_cmpxchg(atomic_t *v, int *old, int new)
 {
 	kcsan_mb();
 	instrument_atomic_read_write(v, sizeof(*v));
-	instrument_atomic_read_write(old, sizeof(*old));
+	instrument_atomic_read_write(old, alignof(*old));
 	return raw_atomic_try_cmpxchg(v, old, new);
 }
 
@@ -1298,7 +1298,7 @@ static __always_inline bool
 atomic_try_cmpxchg_acquire(atomic_t *v, int *old, int new)
 {
 	instrument_atomic_read_write(v, sizeof(*v));
-	instrument_atomic_read_write(old, sizeof(*old));
+	instrument_atomic_read_write(old, alignof(*old));
 	return raw_atomic_try_cmpxchg_acquire(v, old, new);
 }
 
@@ -1321,7 +1321,7 @@ atomic_try_cmpxchg_release(atomic_t *v, int *old, int new)
 {
 	kcsan_release();
 	instrument_atomic_read_write(v, sizeof(*v));
-	instrument_atomic_read_write(old, sizeof(*old));
+	instrument_atomic_read_write(old, alignof(*old));
 	return raw_atomic_try_cmpxchg_release(v, old, new);
 }
 
@@ -1343,7 +1343,7 @@ static __always_inline bool
 atomic_try_cmpxchg_relaxed(atomic_t *v, int *old, int new)
 {
 	instrument_atomic_read_write(v, sizeof(*v));
-	instrument_atomic_read_write(old, sizeof(*old));
+	instrument_atomic_read_write(old, alignof(*old));
 	return raw_atomic_try_cmpxchg_relaxed(v, old, new);
 }
 
@@ -2854,7 +2854,7 @@ atomic64_try_cmpxchg(atomic64_t *v, s64 *old, s64 new)
 {
 	kcsan_mb();
 	instrument_atomic_read_write(v, sizeof(*v));
-	instrument_atomic_read_write(old, sizeof(*old));
+	instrument_atomic_read_write(old, alignof(*old));
 	return raw_atomic64_try_cmpxchg(v, old, new);
 }
 
@@ -2876,7 +2876,7 @@ static __always_inline bool
 atomic64_try_cmpxchg_acquire(atomic64_t *v, s64 *old, s64 new)
 {
 	instrument_atomic_read_write(v, sizeof(*v));
-	instrument_atomic_read_write(old, sizeof(*old));
+	instrument_atomic_read_write(old, alignof(*old));
 	return raw_atomic64_try_cmpxchg_acquire(v, old, new);
 }
 
@@ -2899,7 +2899,7 @@ atomic64_try_cmpxchg_release(atomic64_t *v, s64 *old, s64 new)
 {
 	kcsan_release();
 	instrument_atomic_read_write(v, sizeof(*v));
-	instrument_atomic_read_write(old, sizeof(*old));
+	instrument_atomic_read_write(old, alignof(*old));
 	return raw_atomic64_try_cmpxchg_release(v, old, new);
 }
 
@@ -2921,7 +2921,7 @@ static __always_inline bool
 atomic64_try_cmpxchg_relaxed(atomic64_t *v, s64 *old, s64 new)
 {
 	instrument_atomic_read_write(v, sizeof(*v));
-	instrument_atomic_read_write(old, sizeof(*old));
+	instrument_atomic_read_write(old, alignof(*old));
 	return raw_atomic64_try_cmpxchg_relaxed(v, old, new);
 }
 
@@ -4432,7 +4432,7 @@ atomic_long_try_cmpxchg(atomic_long_t *v, long *old, long new)
 {
 	kcsan_mb();
 	instrument_atomic_read_write(v, sizeof(*v));
-	instrument_atomic_read_write(old, sizeof(*old));
+	instrument_atomic_read_write(old, alignof(*old));
 	return raw_atomic_long_try_cmpxchg(v, old, new);
 }
 
@@ -4454,7 +4454,7 @@ static __always_inline bool
 atomic_long_try_cmpxchg_acquire(atomic_long_t *v, long *old, long new)
 {
 	instrument_atomic_read_write(v, sizeof(*v));
-	instrument_atomic_read_write(old, sizeof(*old));
+	instrument_atomic_read_write(old, alignof(*old));
 	return raw_atomic_long_try_cmpxchg_acquire(v, old, new);
 }
 
@@ -4477,7 +4477,7 @@ atomic_long_try_cmpxchg_release(atomic_long_t *v, long *old, long new)
 {
 	kcsan_release();
 	instrument_atomic_read_write(v, sizeof(*v));
-	instrument_atomic_read_write(old, sizeof(*old));
+	instrument_atomic_read_write(old, alignof(*old));
 	return raw_atomic_long_try_cmpxchg_release(v, old, new);
 }
 
@@ -4499,7 +4499,7 @@ static __always_inline bool
 atomic_long_try_cmpxchg_relaxed(atomic_long_t *v, long *old, long new)
 {
 	instrument_atomic_read_write(v, sizeof(*v));
-	instrument_atomic_read_write(old, sizeof(*old));
+	instrument_atomic_read_write(old, alignof(*old));
 	return raw_atomic_long_try_cmpxchg_relaxed(v, old, new);
 }
 

  reply	other threads:[~2025-09-30  6:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-09-14  0:45 [RFC v2 0/3] Align atomic storage Finn Thain
2025-09-14  0:45 ` [RFC v2 2/3] atomic: Specify alignment for atomic_t and atomic64_t Finn Thain
2025-09-15  7:13   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2025-09-15  7:35   ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-09-15  8:06     ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-15  9:26     ` Finn Thain
2025-09-15  9:29       ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-09-22  7:06   ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2025-09-22  8:16     ` Finn Thain
2025-09-22  9:29       ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2025-09-22 15:21       ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-09-23  6:28         ` Finn Thain
2025-09-23  6:41           ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-09-23  8:05             ` Finn Thain
2025-09-23 19:11               ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-09-30  2:18           ` Finn Thain
2025-09-30  6:35             ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2025-10-01  1:03               ` Finn Thain
2025-10-01  6:44                 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-10-06  9:25                   ` Finn Thain
2025-10-06  9:25               ` Finn Thain
2025-10-06 10:07                 ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-10-06 10:22                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-10-06 11:09                     ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-10-06  9:37               ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-30  7:41             ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2025-10-01  1:46               ` Finn Thain
2025-10-01  7:08                 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2025-09-14  0:45 ` [RFC v2 1/3] documentation: Discourage alignment assumptions Finn Thain
2025-09-14  0:45 ` [RFC v2 3/3] atomic: Add alignment check to instrumented atomic operations Finn Thain
2025-09-15  8:00   ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-15  9:38     ` Finn Thain
2025-09-15 10:06       ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-15 10:37         ` Finn Thain
2025-09-15 11:20           ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-09-16  0:16             ` Finn Thain
2025-09-16 10:10               ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2025-09-17  1:23                 ` Finn Thain
2025-09-16 12:37               ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-09-16 21:38                 ` Brad Boyer
2025-09-17 16:54                   ` Andreas Schwab
2025-09-17  2:14                 ` Finn Thain
2025-09-22 15:49                   ` Arnd Bergmann
2025-09-23  6:39                     ` Finn Thain

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=e02f861b-706c-4f6d-bded-002601da954a@app.fastmail.com \
    --to=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=fthain@linux-m68k.org \
    --cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
    --cc=lance.yang@linux.dev \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=will@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).