[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090511204933.GA7737@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 22:49:33 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, roland@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] kernel/sched.c: VLA in middle of struct
* Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 9 May 2009 04:39:44 am Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>> * Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> wrote:
>>>>> The semantics for variable-length arrays __in the middle of structs__
>>>>> are quite muddy, and a case in sched.c presents an interesting case,
>>>>> as the preceding code comment indicates:
>>>>>
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * The cpus mask in sched_group and sched_domain hangs off
>>>>> the end. * FIXME: use cpumask_var_t or dynamic percpu alloc
>>>>> to avoid * wasting space for nr_cpu_ids < CONFIG_NR_CPUS. */
>>>>> struct static_sched_group {
>>>>> struct sched_group sg; DECLARE_BITMAP(cpus,
>>>>> CONFIG_NR_CPUS);
>>>>> };
>>> Yeah, it's kinda nasty. Generally, sched_group is dynamically
>>> allocated, so we just allocate sizeof(struct sched_group) + size of
>>> nr_cpu_ids bits.
>>>
>>> These ones are static, and it was easier to put this hack in than
>>> make them dynamic. There's nothing wrong with it, until we really
>>> want NR_CPUS == bignum, or we want to get rid of NR_CPUS altogether
>>> for CONFIG_CPUMASKS_OFFSTACK (which would be very clean, but not
>>> clearly worthwhile).
>>>
>>> But more importantly, my comment is obviously unclear, since your
>>> patch shows you didn't understand the purpose of the field: The cpus
>>> bitmap *is* the sg-cpumask[] array.
>>
>> I dont think Jeff misunderstood this code (hey, he found it! :), his
>> patch is a demonstration of why this code is a problem: a seemingly
>> innocious invariant modification (his patch) kills the kernel dead.
>
> Yeah, it was intended to spark debate... definitely not to be applied
> (hence "NOT-signed-off-by", among other hints).
>
>
>>>>> Maybe a C expert can say whether cpumask[0] is better than cpumask[],
>>>>> or have other comments?
>>> [0] is a gcc extension, but it should be equivalent.
>>>
>>>> That cpumask[] should probably be cpumask[0], to document the
>>>> aliasing to ->span and ->cpus properly.
>>> If the comment wasn't sufficient documentation, I don't think that
>>> would help :(
>>
>> It's a visual helper: it matches up with how we do these 'zero size
>> array means dynamic structure continuation' tricks generally.
>>
>> I first mis-parsed the code for a second when seeing cpumask[].
>> cpumask[0] stands out like a sore thumb. And we dont read comments
>> anyway ;-)
>>
>> Jeff, i suspect you found this because you are working on something
>> rather interesting? :) If yes, would it help your project if we did
>> the cpumask[0] cleanup and pushed it upstream immediately?
>
> I think cpumask[0] would be more clear and consistent with the
> rest of the kernel.
>
> But unfortunately for the twin projects of (a) static analysis and
> checking with 'sparse', and (b) compiling under another compiler,
> VLA-in-middle-of-struct is a killer in either case.
even if at the end of the struct?
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