public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	gcc@gcc.gnu.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
	hpa@zytor.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
	andi.kleen@intel.com, gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [RFC patch] spindep: add cross cache lines checking
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:21:02 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1331173262.18835.347.camel@debian> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120307133937.GB12676@elte.hu>

On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 14:39 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > > I think the check should be (__alignof__(lock) < 
> > > __alignof__(rwlock_t)), otherwise it will still pass when 
> > > you have structure with attribute((packed,aligned(2)))
> > 
> > reasonable!
> > 
> > >> 1, it is alignof bug for default gcc on my fc15 and Ubuntu 11.10 etc?
> > >>
> > >> struct sub {
> > >>         int  raw_lock;
> > >>         char a;
> > >> };
> > >> struct foo {
> > >>         struct sub z;
> > >>         int slk;
> > >>         char y;
> > >> }__attribute__((packed));
> > >>
> > >> struct foo f1;
> > >>
> > >> __alignof__(f1.z.raw_lock) is 4, but its address actually can align on
> > >> one byte. 
> > > 
> > > That looks like correct behavior, because the alignment of 
> > > raw_lock inside of struct sub is still 4. But it does mean 
> > > that there can be cases where the compile-time check is not 
> > > sufficient, so we might want the run-time check as well, at 
> > > least under some config option.
> > 
> > what's your opinion of this, Ingo?
> 
> Dunno. How many real bugs have you found via this patch?

None. Guess stupid code was shot in lkml reviewing. But if the patch in,
it is helpful to block stupid code in developing. 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	Ingo



  reply	other threads:[~2012-03-08  2:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-03-05  3:20 [RFC patch] spin_lock: add cross cache lines checking Alex Shi
2012-03-05  3:24 ` Alex Shi
2012-03-05  5:43   ` [RFC patch] spindep: " Alex Shi
2012-03-05  5:48     ` Alex Shi
2012-03-05  9:41     ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-03-05 10:43       ` Ingo Molnar
2012-03-06  6:13         ` Alex Shi
2012-03-06  6:18           ` Alex Shi
2012-03-06  9:32           ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-03-07  8:23             ` Alex Shi
2012-03-07 11:54               ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-03-07 13:13                 ` Alex Shi
2012-03-07 13:39                   ` Ingo Molnar
2012-03-08  2:21                     ` Alex Shi [this message]
2012-03-08  7:13                       ` Ingo Molnar
2012-03-09  1:20                         ` Alex Shi
2012-03-08  2:30                 ` Alex Shi

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=1331173262.18835.347.camel@debian \
    --to=alex.shi@intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=andi.kleen@intel.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=x86@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