From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: crisv32 runtime failure in -next due to 'page-flags: define behavior SL*B-related flags on compound pages' Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 08:18:35 -0700 Message-ID: <20150922151835.GM4029@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20150922132751.GB17969@node.dhcp.inet.fi> <201509221357.t8MDv6G5015271@ignucius.se.axis.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]:38500 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755471AbbIVPSn (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:18:43 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e33.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 09:18:43 -0600 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201509221357.t8MDv6G5015271@ignucius.se.axis.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Hans-Peter Nilsson Cc: kirill@shutemov.name, starvik@axis.com, linux@roeck-us.net, jespern@axis.com, hughd@google.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, minchan@kernel.org, linux-cris-kernel@axis.com On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 03:57:06PM +0200, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" > > Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 15:27:51 +0200 > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 02:50:19PM +0200, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > > That element (the struct) needs *explicit* padding or alignment > > > to the required multiplicity of bytes for anyone to portably be > > > able to imply something other than "byte alignment" for the > > > layout of it, as elements of an array, across systems. Use > > > dummy elements or a compiler construct like __attribute__ > > > ((__aligned__ (...))) per kernel policy or taste. I'd recommend > > > specifying the alignment, so TRT will happen for it when it in > > > turn is an element of an otherwise unpadded struct. > > > I see. I would say it's very risky ABI choice, but okay. > > > > What was the reason behind? I don't understand it. > > It was made some 20+ years ago, some of the reason being (here's > the irony) compatibility with a toolchain for another > architecture, popular at the time, now forgotten. > Another reason (IIRC) was that it saves space. :) > > > Is it free to make misaligned memory access on CRIS? > > Within a cache-line for CRIS v32, it's free. > > > What about atomicity? How it works for misaligned accesses? > > Good spotting. No system with page layouts fixed at size > multiples (all are, it'd be crazy to split pages as low as byte > boundaries) can support naturally-misaligned atomic accesses. > > Therefore elements with access expecting atomicity, have be > decorated with alignment-inducing attributes, for portability, > e.g. to work for CRIS. In userspace, I can at times get away > with calling a special function with a process-wide lock, in > those cases where the upstream project is unlikely to timely > understand e.g. that a naked "int" is not naturally aligned. > > > The patch below fixes issue for me. > > Thanks. > > > I'm not sure if we want to ask for alignment to sizeof(long). > > aligned(2) works too. > > I guess you hit the right spot, but I'd think people would be > more comfortable with aligning to sizeof (void *). I would indeed prefer sizeof(void *). Thanx, Paul