netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wen Gu <guwen@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Alexandra Winter <wintera@linux.ibm.com>,
	wenjia@linux.ibm.com, hca@linux.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com,
	agordeev@linux.ibm.com, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com,
	kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, kgraul@linux.ibm.com,
	jaka@linux.ibm.com
Cc: borntraeger@linux.ibm.com, svens@linux.ibm.com,
	alibuda@linux.alibaba.com, tonylu@linux.alibaba.com,
	raspl@linux.ibm.com, schnelle@linux.ibm.com,
	guangguan.wang@linux.alibaba.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v8 03/10] net/smc: unify the structs of accept or confirm message for v1 and v2
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 20:16:50 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <38f06cfb-2d68-2b10-f82b-62a44c25b8f8@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ab835e29-ad4a-4377-b80a-8ef6bb35ef7b@linux.ibm.com>



On 2023/12/20 19:37, Alexandra Winter wrote:
> 
> 
> On 19.12.23 15:26, Wen Gu wrote:
>>   struct smc_clc_msg_accept_confirm {	/* clc accept / confirm message */
>> -	struct smc_clc_msg_hdr hdr;
>> -	union {
>> -		struct smcr_clc_msg_accept_confirm r0; /* SMC-R */
>> -		struct { /* SMC-D */
>> -			struct smcd_clc_msg_accept_confirm_common d0;
>> -			u32 reserved5[3];
>> -		};
>> -	};
>> -} __packed;			/* format defined in RFC7609 */
>> -
>> -struct smc_clc_msg_accept_confirm_v2 {	/* clc accept / confirm message */
>>   	struct smc_clc_msg_hdr hdr;
>>   	union {
>>   		struct { /* SMC-R */
>>   			struct smcr_clc_msg_accept_confirm r0;
>> -			u8 eid[SMC_MAX_EID_LEN];
>> -			u8 reserved6[8];
>> -		} r1;
>> +			struct { /* v2 only */
>> +				u8 eid[SMC_MAX_EID_LEN];
>> +				u8 reserved6[8];
>> +			} __packed r1;
>> +		};
>>   		struct { /* SMC-D */
>>   			struct smcd_clc_msg_accept_confirm_common d0;
>> -			__be16 chid;
>> -			u8 eid[SMC_MAX_EID_LEN];
>> -			u8 reserved5[8];
>> -		} d1;
>> +			struct { /* v2 only, but 12 bytes reserved in v1 */
>> +				__be16 chid;
>> +				u8 eid[SMC_MAX_EID_LEN];
>> +				u8 reserved5[8];
>> +			} __packed d1;
>> +		};
>>   	};
>>   };
> 
> 
> I still think the __packed at the outmost level is the safest place.
> Like you have it now the compiler could place unused memory between
> ro and r1 or between d0 and d1.
> Afaik compilers don't do that, if the blocks are word-aligned, but
> there is no guarantee.
> 
> Up to you. My R-b still applies.
> Sandy

Thank you, Sandy.

IIUC, if only outmost level has __packed, it won't work for the inner block.

e.g.

If __packed is added at d1 and r1:

struct smc_clc_msg_accept_confirm {     /* clc accept / confirm message */
         struct smc_clc_msg_hdr hdr;
         union {
                 struct { /* SMC-R */
                         struct smcr_clc_msg_accept_confirm r0;
                         struct { /* v2 only */
                                 u8 eid[SMC_MAX_EID_LEN];
                                 u8 reserved6[8];
                         } __packed r1;
                 };
                 struct { /* SMC-D */
                         struct smcd_clc_msg_accept_confirm_common d0;
                         struct { /* v2 only, but 12 bytes reserved in v1 */
                                 __be16 chid;
                                 u8 eid[SMC_MAX_EID_LEN];
                                 u64 gid_ext;
                         } __packed d1;
                 };
         };
};

According to pahole, it will be:

struct smc_clc_msg_accept_confirm {
         struct smc_clc_msg_hdr     hdr;                  /*     0     8 */
         union {
                 struct {
                         struct smcr_clc_msg_accept_confirm r0; /*     8    56 */
                         /* --- cacheline 1 boundary (64 bytes) --- */
                         struct {
                                 u8 eid[32];              /*    64    32 */
                                 u8 reserved6[8];         /*    96     8 */
                         } r1;                            /*    64    40 */
                 };                                       /*     8    96 */
                 struct {
                         struct smcd_clc_msg_accept_confirm_common d0; /*     8    24 */
                         struct {
                                 __be16 chid;             /*    32     2 */
                                 u8 eid[32];              /*    34    32 */
                                 /* --- cacheline 1 boundary (64 bytes) was 2 bytes ago --- */
                                 u64 gid_ext;             /*    66     8 */
                         } __attribute__((__packed__)) d1; /*    32    42 */
                 } __attribute__((__packed__));           /*     8    66 */
         };                                               /*     8    96 */

         /* size: 104, cachelines: 2, members: 2 */
         /* last cacheline: 40 bytes */
};


If __packed is added at outmost level:

struct smc_clc_msg_accept_confirm {     /* clc accept / confirm message */
         struct smc_clc_msg_hdr hdr;
         union {
                 struct { /* SMC-R */
                         struct smcr_clc_msg_accept_confirm r0;
                         struct { /* v2 only */
                                 u8 eid[SMC_MAX_EID_LEN];
                                 u8 reserved6[8];
                         } r1;
                 };
                 struct { /* SMC-D */
                         struct smcd_clc_msg_accept_confirm_common d0;
                         struct { /* v2 only, but 12 bytes reserved in v1 */
                                 __be16 chid;
                                 u8 eid[SMC_MAX_EID_LEN];
                                 u64 gid_ext;
                         } d1;
                 };
         };
} __packed;

According to pahole, it will be:

struct smc_clc_msg_accept_confirm {
         struct smc_clc_msg_hdr     hdr;                  /*     0     8 */
         union {
                 struct {
                         struct smcr_clc_msg_accept_confirm r0; /*     8    56 */
                         /* --- cacheline 1 boundary (64 bytes) --- */
                         struct {
                                 u8 eid[32];              /*    64    32 */
                                 u8 reserved6[8];         /*    96     8 */
                         } r1;                            /*    64    40 */
                 };                                       /*     8    96 */
                 struct {
                         struct smcd_clc_msg_accept_confirm_common d0; /*     8    24 */
                         struct {
                                 __be16 chid;             /*    32     2 */
                                 u8 eid[32];              /*    34    32 */

                                 /* XXX 6 bytes hole, try to pack */

                                 /* --- cacheline 1 boundary (64 bytes) was 8 bytes ago --- */
                                 u64 gid_ext;             /*    72     8 */
                         } d1;                            /*    32    48 */   <- doesn't work for inner d1.
                 };                                       /*     8    72 */
         };                                               /*     8    96 */

         /* size: 104, cachelines: 2, members: 2 */
         /* last cacheline: 40 bytes */
};


I also considered add them all:

struct smc_clc_msg_accept_confirm {     /* clc accept / confirm message */
         struct smc_clc_msg_hdr hdr;
         union {
                 struct { /* SMC-R */
                         struct smcr_clc_msg_accept_confirm r0;
                         struct { /* v2 only */
                                 u8 eid[SMC_MAX_EID_LEN];
                                 u8 reserved6[8];
                         } __packed r1;
                 } __packed;
                 struct { /* SMC-D */
                         struct smcd_clc_msg_accept_confirm_common d0;
                         struct { /* v2 only, but 12 bytes reserved in v1 */
                                 __be16 chid;
                                 u8 eid[SMC_MAX_EID_LEN];
                                 u64 gid_ext;
                         } __packed d1;
                 } __packed;
         };
} __packed;

but a little bit strange since for only d1 needs to packed, so I kept it as it is now.

Thanks,
Wen Gu

  reply	other threads:[~2023-12-20 12:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-12-19 14:26 [PATCH net-next v8 00/10] net/smc: implement SMCv2.1 virtual ISM device support Wen Gu
2023-12-19 14:26 ` [PATCH net-next v8 01/10] net/smc: rename some 'fce' to 'fce_v2x' for clarity Wen Gu
2023-12-19 14:26 ` [PATCH net-next v8 02/10] net/smc: introduce sub-functions for smc_clc_send_confirm_accept() Wen Gu
2023-12-19 14:26 ` [PATCH net-next v8 03/10] net/smc: unify the structs of accept or confirm message for v1 and v2 Wen Gu
2023-12-20 10:27   ` Alexandra Winter
2023-12-20 11:37   ` Alexandra Winter
2023-12-20 12:16     ` Wen Gu [this message]
2023-12-19 14:26 ` [PATCH net-next v8 04/10] net/smc: support SMCv2.x supplemental features negotiation Wen Gu
2023-12-19 14:26 ` [PATCH net-next v8 05/10] net/smc: introduce virtual ISM device support feature Wen Gu
2023-12-19 14:26 ` [PATCH net-next v8 06/10] net/smc: define a reserved CHID range for virtual ISM devices Wen Gu
2023-12-19 14:26 ` [PATCH net-next v8 07/10] net/smc: compatible with 128-bits extended GID of virtual ISM device Wen Gu
2024-01-24 14:29   ` [REGRESSION] v6.8 SMC-D issues Alexandra Winter
2024-01-24 14:44     ` Alexandra Winter
2024-01-25  4:59     ` Wen Gu
2024-01-25  8:26       ` Alexandra Winter
2024-01-25  9:28         ` Wen Gu
2023-12-19 14:26 ` [PATCH net-next v8 08/10] net/smc: support extended GID in SMC-D lgr netlink attribute Wen Gu
2023-12-19 14:26 ` [PATCH net-next v8 09/10] net/smc: disable SEID on non-s390 archs where virtual ISM may be used Wen Gu
2023-12-19 14:26 ` [PATCH net-next v8 10/10] net/smc: manage system EID in SMC stack instead of ISM driver Wen Gu
2023-12-20 13:34 ` [PATCH net-next v8 00/10] net/smc: implement SMCv2.1 virtual ISM device support Wen Gu
2023-12-26 20:30 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf

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=38f06cfb-2d68-2b10-f82b-62a44c25b8f8@linux.alibaba.com \
    --to=guwen@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=alibuda@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=borntraeger@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=guangguan.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=jaka@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=kgraul@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=raspl@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=schnelle@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=svens@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=tonylu@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=wenjia@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=wintera@linux.ibm.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).