[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140609152415.GA4581@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 08:24:16 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mikael Pettersson <mikpelinux@...il.com>
Cc: Greg Ungerer <gerg@...inux.org>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Linux Kernel Development <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux/m68k <linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: rcu alignment warning tripping on m68k
On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 03:17:24PM +0200, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney writes:
> > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:29:41AM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
> > > On 29/05/14 23:11, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 29 May 2014 12:08:32 +1000
> > > > Greg Ungerer <gerg@...inux.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi All,
> > > >>
> > > >> Inside kernel/rcy/tree.c in __call_rcu() it does an alignment check on
> > > >> the head pointer passed in. This trips on m68k systems, because they only
> > > >> need alignment of 32bit quantities to 16bit boundaries.
> > > >
> > > > __alignof perhaps ?
> > >
> > > That might do. Change then becomes something like:
> > >
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > @@ -2467,7 +2467,7 @@ __call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, void (*func)(struct rcu_
> > > unsigned long flags;
> > > struct rcu_data *rdp;
> > >
> > > - WARN_ON_ONCE((unsigned long)head & 0x3); /* Misaligned rcu_head! */
> > > + WARN_ON_ONCE((unsigned long)head & (__alignof__(head) - 1)); /* Misaligned rcu_head! */
> >
> > Hmmm... The purpose of the check is to reserve the low-order bits to
> > allow RCU to classify callbacks as being time-critical or not. RCU
> > can probably live with a single bit, but if there is some architecture
> > out there that simply refuses to do alignment, I need to know about it.
> >
> > (See "git show 0bb7b59d6e2b8" for more info.)
> >
> > So how about this instead?
> >
> > - WARN_ON_ONCE((unsigned long)head & 0x1); /* Misaligned rcu_head! */
> >
> > (Trying to remember if I have seen Linux kernel code that uses both
> > the lower bits...)
>
> As stated above, m68k-linux aligns to 16-bit boundaries by default, so you'd
> get one bit but not necessarily more. If you want more free low bits, why
> not attach an explicit attribute aligned to the rcu_head type declaration?
One bit should do it for the time being, but yes, if I ever need two bits,
your suggestion of explicitly aligning the rcu_head type declaration
sounds like a very good one.
Thanx, Paul
--
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