[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140314185005.GA17041@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:50:05 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, jhs@...atatu.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [RCU PATCH 06/14] net: sched: fw use RCU
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 08:38:10AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 06:46:38AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 06:28 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > > Now I just need to figure out why it -causes- a BUILD_BUG_ON for the
> > > cris and m68k architectures in Fengguang Wu's testing...
> >
> > Right, they don't necessarily align pointers ;)
> >
> > alignof(void *) ?
>
> It complained about the size rather than the alignment, but it would
> certainly make sense to constrain the rcu_head structure's alignment,
> now that you mention it. I will do that and see if it helps. ;-)
>
> Thank you for the tip!
And you were quite right... When the alignment is bad, it complains
about the size. And although I can specify that struct rcu_head be
aligned, but __attribute__(packed) overrides this when specified on an
enclosing structure. As does the -fpack-struct gcc command-line option.
Other thoughts on getting around this problem?
Hmmm... Maybe if cris and m68k guaranteed to keep functions out of the
bottom four pages of memory...
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists