public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	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: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 21:13:45 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F575F09.3010107@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201203071154.36059.arnd@arndb.de>


> 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?

  reply	other threads:[~2012-03-07 13:14 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 [this message]
2012-03-07 13:39                   ` Ingo Molnar
2012-03-08  2:21                     ` Alex Shi
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=4F575F09.3010107@intel.com \
    --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