[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1215086221.3026.16.camel@castor.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:57:01 +0100
From: Richard Kennedy <richard@....demon.co.uk>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: x86_64: tss_struct layout does not match comments !?
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 13:39 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Richard Kennedy <richard@....demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ingo,
> >
> > the comments in the definition of tss_struct suggests is should be
> > cacheline aligned ( or 256 byte aligned ? ) :-
> >
> > |struct tss_struct {
> > |....
> > | /*
> > | * Pad the TSS to be cacheline-aligned (size is 0x100):
> > | */
> > | unsigned long __cacheline_filler[35];
> > | /*
> > | * .. and then another 0x100 bytes for the emergency kernel stack:
> > | */
> > | unsigned long stack[64];
> > |
> > |} __attribute__((packed));
> >
> > However on a 64 bit build the size of tss_struct is 9136,
> > cacheline_filler is 280 and stack size is 512 at offset 8624.
> > None of which are cacheline aligned.
> >
> > I'm guessing this isn't what was intended.
> >
> > do you know what the original intention was ?
> >
> > 1. struct tss_struct{...} __cacheline_aligned;
> > or just
> > 2. struct tss_struct {
> > ...
> > long stack[64] __cacheline_aligned;
> > }
>
> #1 is the intent - because each CPU has a separate TSS. init_tss.stack
> is really just an emergency static stack we have in place for very early
> exceptions.
>
> i think the __cacheline_filler could be removed safely. Mind sending a
> patch for that?
>
> Ingo
No problem.
Richard
--
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