[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160128.015643.125847430094859447.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 01:56:43 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: tushar.n.dave@...cle.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com,
jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, shannon.nelson@...el.com,
carolyn.wyborny@...el.com, donald.c.skidmore@...el.com,
bruce.w.allan@...el.com, john.ronciak@...el.com,
mitch.a.williams@...el.com, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org
Subject: Re: i40e: Kernel unaligned access due to 'struct i40e_dma_mem'
being 'packed'
From: tndave <tushar.n.dave@...cle.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 17:50:14 -0800
> Hi,
>
> i40e driver has 'struct i40e_dma_mem' defined with 'packed' directive
> causing kernel unaligned errors on sparc (when
> 40e_allocate_dma_mem_d()
> is being called)
>
> log_unaligned: 1031 callbacks suppressed
> Kernel unaligned access at TPC[448ae8]
> dma_4v_alloc_coherent+0x188/0x2e0
> Kernel unaligned access at TPC[448ae8]
> dma_4v_alloc_coherent+0x188/0x2e0
> Kernel unaligned access at TPC[448ae8]
> dma_4v_alloc_coherent+0x188/0x2e0
> Kernel unaligned access at TPC[448ae8]
> dma_4v_alloc_coherent+0x188/0x2e0
>
> This can be fixed with get_unaligned/put_unaligned(). However I don't
> see 'struct i40e_dma_mem' is being directly shoved into NIC hardware.
> But instead fields of the struct are being read and used for hardware
> (e.g. dma_addr_t pa). For the test, I remove __packed, and i40e driver
> and HW works fine. (of course kernel unaligned errors are gone too).
> My question is, does 'struct i40e_dma_mem' required to be __packed?
People get overzealoud with __packed.
And even if it doesn't cause unaligned accesses like this, it generates
terrible code (byte at a time accesses to words) on several architectures.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists