[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080703113925.GA5594@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 13:39:25 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Richard Kennedy <richard@....demon.co.uk>
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 !?
* 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
--
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