[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200805301552.25423.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 15:52:24 +1000
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Subject: Re: [patch 02/41] cpu alloc: The allocator
On Friday 30 May 2008 15:20:45 Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2008, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(UNIT_TYPE, area[UNITS]);
> >
> > area[] is not guaranteed to be aligned on anything but 4 bytes.
> >
> > If someone then needs to call cpu_alloc(8, GFP_KERNEL, 8), it might get
> > an non aligned result.
> >
> > Either you should add an __attribute__((__aligned__(PAGE_SIZE))),
> > or take into account the real address of area[] in cpu_alloc() to avoid
> > waste of up to PAGE_SIZE bytes
> > per cpu.
>
> I think cacheline aligning should be sufficient. People should not
> allocate large page aligned objects here.
I vaguely recall there were issues with this in the module code. They might
be gone now, but failing to meet alignment contraints without a big warning
would suck.
But modifying your code to consider the actual alignment is actually pretty
trivial, AFAICT.
Cheers,
Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists