linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>,
	kbuild-all@lists.01.org, kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
	Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org>,
	clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com, brouer@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Matteo Croce <mcroce@linux.microsoft.com>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Bogus struct page layout on 32-bit
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 08:21:58 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210410082158.79ad09a6@carbon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210410024313.GX2531743@casper.infradead.org>

On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 03:43:13 +0100
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 06:45:35AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > >> include/linux/mm_types.h:274:1: error: static_assert failed due to requirement '__builtin_offsetof(struct page, lru) == __builtin_offsetof(struct folio, lru)' "offsetof(struct page, lru) == offsetof(struct folio, lru)"  
> >    FOLIO_MATCH(lru, lru);
> >    include/linux/mm_types.h:272:2: note: expanded from macro 'FOLIO_MATCH'
> >            static_assert(offsetof(struct page, pg) == offsetof(struct folio, fl))  
> 
> Well, this is interesting.  pahole reports:
> 
> struct page {
>         long unsigned int          flags;                /*     0     4 */
>         /* XXX 4 bytes hole, try to pack */
>         union {
>                 struct {
>                         struct list_head lru;            /*     8     8 */
> ...
> struct folio {
>         union {
>                 struct {
>                         long unsigned int flags;         /*     0     4 */
>                         struct list_head lru;            /*     4     8 */
> 
> so this assert has absolutely done its job.
> 
> But why has this assert triggered?  Why is struct page layout not what
> we thought it was?  Turns out it's the dma_addr added in 2019 by commit
> c25fff7171be ("mm: add dma_addr_t to struct page").  On this particular
> config, it's 64-bit, and ppc32 requires alignment to 64-bit.  So
> the whole union gets moved out by 4 bytes.

Argh, good that you are catching this!

> Unfortunately, we can't just fix this by putting an 'unsigned long pad'
> in front of it.  It still aligns the entire union to 8 bytes, and then
> it skips another 4 bytes after the pad.
> 
> We can fix it like this ...
> 
> +++ b/include/linux/mm_types.h
> @@ -96,11 +96,12 @@ struct page {
>                         unsigned long private;
>                 };
>                 struct {        /* page_pool used by netstack */
> +                       unsigned long _page_pool_pad;

I'm fine with this pad.  Matteo is currently proposing[1] to add a 32-bit
value after @dma_addr, and he could use this area instead.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20210409223801.104657-3-mcroce@linux.microsoft.com/

When adding/changing this, we need to make sure that it doesn't overlap
member @index, because network stack use/check page_is_pfmemalloc().
As far as my calculations this is safe to add.  I always try to keep an
eye out for this, but I wonder if we could have a build check like yours.


>                         /**
>                          * @dma_addr: might require a 64-bit value even on
>                          * 32-bit architectures.
>                          */
> -                       dma_addr_t dma_addr;
> +                       dma_addr_t dma_addr __packed;
>                 };
>                 struct {        /* slab, slob and slub */
>                         union {
> 
> but I don't know if GCC is smart enough to realise that dma_addr is now
> on an 8 byte boundary and it can use a normal instruction to access it,
> or whether it'll do something daft like use byte loads to access it.
> 
> We could also do:
> 
> +                       dma_addr_t dma_addr __packed __aligned(sizeof(void *));
> 
> and I see pahole, at least sees this correctly:
> 
>                 struct {
>                         long unsigned int _page_pool_pad; /*     4     4 */
>                         dma_addr_t dma_addr __attribute__((__aligned__(4))); /*     8     8 */
>                 } __attribute__((__packed__)) __attribute__((__aligned__(4)));  
> 
> This presumably affects any 32-bit architecture with a 64-bit phys_addr_t
> / dma_addr_t.  Advice, please?

I'm not sure that the 32-bit behavior is with 64-bit (dma) addrs.

I don't have any 32-bit boards with 64-bit DMA.  Cc. Ivan, wasn't your
board (572x ?) 32-bit with driver 'cpsw' this case (where Ivan added
XDP+page_pool) ?

-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer


  reply	other threads:[~2021-04-10  6:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20210409185105.188284-3-willy@infradead.org>
     [not found] ` <202104100656.N7EVvkNZ-lkp@intel.com>
2021-04-10  2:43   ` Bogus struct page layout on 32-bit Matthew Wilcox
2021-04-10  6:21     ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer [this message]
2021-04-10  8:52       ` Ilias Apalodimas
2021-04-10 14:06         ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-04-10 15:54           ` Russell King - ARM Linux admin
2021-04-16  9:26         ` Grygorii Strashko
2021-04-16 14:10           ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-04-17 13:08           ` David Laight
2021-04-10 14:17     ` David Laight
2021-04-10 19:10     ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-04-11 22:35       ` Matthew Wilcox

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=20210410082158.79ad09a6@carbon \
    --to=brouer@redhat.com \
    --cc=clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org \
    --cc=ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org \
    --cc=kbuild-all@lists.01.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=lkp@intel.com \
    --cc=mcroce@linux.microsoft.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=willy@infradead.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).