From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org,
Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter.nilsson@axis.com>,
starvik@axis.com, jespern@axis.com, hughd@google.com,
kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, linux-next@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, minchan@kernel.org,
linux-cris-kernel@axis.com
Subject: Re: crisv32 runtime failure in -next due to 'page-flags: define behavior SL*B-related flags on compound pages'
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:45:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150924044516.GF4029@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5602BF14.8040803@roeck-us.net>
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 08:02:44AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 09/23/2015 03:53 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 08:40:14AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 06:31:04PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 08:18:35AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>>>On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 03:57:06PM +0200, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> >>>>>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 *).
> >>>
> >>>Do you prefer to have the attribute set for whole structure or for ->next?
> >>>I think attribute on ->next is more appropriate from documentation POV.
> >
> >I retract this claim: we have requirement about pointee alignment, not
> >pointer alignment.
> >
> >>From edbab9e89f5e4ad42e63d93ab05519e6a5f4d552 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> >Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 13:39:28 +0300
> >Subject: [PATCH] rcu: force alignment on struct callback_head/rcu_head
> >
> >This patch makes struct callback_head aligned to size of pointer. On
> >most architectures it happens naturally due ABI requirements, but some
> >architectures (like CRIS) have weird ABI and we need to ask it
> >explicitly.
> >
> >The alignment is required to guarantee that bits 0 and 1 of @next will
> >be clear under normal conditions -- as long as we use call_rcu(),
> >call_rcu_bh(), call_rcu_sched(), or call_srcu() to queue callback.
> >
> >This guarantee is important for few reasons:
> > - future call_rcu_lazy() will make use of lower bits in the pointer;
> > - the structure shares storage spacer in struct page with @compound_head,
> > which encode PageTail() in bit 0. The guarantee is needed to avoid
> > false-positive PageTail().
> >
> >False postive PageTail() caused crash on crisv32[1]. It happend due
> >misaligned task_struct->rcu, which was byte-aligned.
> >
> >[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/55FAEA67.9000102@roeck-us.net
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> >Reported-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
>
> Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
>
> Hope the patch won't get lost since it was attached to an e-mail.
> Can it be added to the branch introducing the problem ?
Andrew Morton picked it up. No idea where the problem was introduced.
Thanx, Paul
> Thanks,
> Guenter
>
> >---
> > include/linux/types.h | 16 +++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/include/linux/types.h b/include/linux/types.h
> >index c314989d9158..70d8500bddf1 100644
> >--- a/include/linux/types.h
> >+++ b/include/linux/types.h
> >@@ -205,11 +205,25 @@ struct ustat {
> > * struct callback_head - callback structure for use with RCU and task_work
> > * @next: next update requests in a list
> > * @func: actual update function to call after the grace period.
> >+ *
> >+ * The struct is aligned to size of pointer. On most architectures it happens
> >+ * naturally due ABI requirements, but some architectures (like CRIS) have
> >+ * weird ABI and we need to ask it explicitly.
> >+ *
> >+ * The alignment is required to guarantee that bits 0 and 1 of @next will be
> >+ * clear under normal conditions -- as long as we use call_rcu(),
> >+ * call_rcu_bh(), call_rcu_sched(), or call_srcu() to queue callback.
> >+ *
> >+ * This guarantee is important for few reasons:
> >+ * - future call_rcu_lazy() will make use of lower bits in the pointer;
> >+ * - the structure shares storage spacer in struct page with @compound_head,
> >+ * which encode PageTail() in bit 0. The guarantee is needed to avoid
> >+ * false-positive PageTail().
> > */
> > struct callback_head {
> > struct callback_head *next;
> > void (*func)(struct callback_head *head);
> >-};
> >+} __attribute__((aligned(sizeof(void *))));
> > #define rcu_head callback_head
> >
> > typedef void (*rcu_callback_t)(struct rcu_head *head);
> >
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-24 4:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-17 16:29 crisv32 runtime failure in -next due to 'page-flags: define behavior SL*B-related flags on compound pages' Guenter Roeck
2015-09-18 14:25 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2015-09-18 14:53 ` Jesper Nilsson
2015-09-18 15:13 ` Guenter Roeck
2015-09-21 15:34 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2015-09-22 1:17 ` Guenter Roeck
2015-09-22 12:03 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2015-09-22 12:19 ` Mikael Starvik
2015-09-22 12:50 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2015-09-22 13:27 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2015-09-22 13:57 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2015-09-22 15:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-09-22 15:31 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2015-09-22 15:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-09-23 10:53 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2015-09-23 15:02 ` Guenter Roeck
2015-09-24 4:45 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2015-09-22 16:16 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2015-09-22 16:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=20150924044516.GF4029@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hans-peter.nilsson@axis.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=jespern@axis.com \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-cris-kernel@axis.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=starvik@axis.com \
/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).