On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 07:23:26AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 03:45:51PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Paul E. McKenney > > <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 08:39:18AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Paul E. McKenney > > >> <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > >> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:48:57PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > >> >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Paul E. McKenney > > >> >> <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > >> >> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 03:18:54PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > >> >> >> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 20:56:09 +0200 > > >> >> >> Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Don't we have __alignof__(void *) to avoid #ifdef CONFIG_M68K > > >> >> >> > > and > > >> >> >> > > other new macros ? > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Hmmm... Does __alignof__(void *) give two-byte alignment on m68k, > > >> >> > allowing something like this? Heh!!! It is already there. ;-) > > >> >> > > > >> >> > struct callback_head { > > >> >> > struct callback_head *next; > > >> >> > void (*func)(struct callback_head *head); > > >> >> > } __attribute__((aligned(sizeof(void *)))); > > >> >> > > >> >> No, it's aligning to sizeof(void *) (4 on m68k), not __alignof__(void > > >> >> *). > > >> > > > >> > Right you are. Commit 720abae3d68ae from Kirill A. Shutemov in > > >> > November > > >> > 2015. > > >> > > > >> > Given that you haven't complained, I am guessing that this works for > > >> > you. > > >> > If so, I can make the __call_rcu() WARN_ON() more strict. > > >> > Again, does the current state work for you? > > > > >> Yes it does. See also your commit 1146edcbef378922 ("rcu: Loosen > > >> __call_rcu()'s > > >> rcu_head alignment constraint"). > > > > > > Understood! > > > > > > But given that all architectures now provide at least four-byte alignment > > > for the rcu_head structure, isn't it now OK for me to tighten up > > > __call_rcu()'s > > > check, for example, to this? > > > > > > WARN_ON_ONCE((unsigned long)head & (sizeof(void *) - 1)); > > > > Yes, I agree with that. > > Very good, I have queued the following patch. > > Thanx, Paul > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > commit 89d39c83d193733ed5fff1c480cd42c9de1da404 > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Date: Tue Aug 23 06:51:47 2016 -0700 > > rcu: Tighted up __call_rcu() rcu_head alignment check > > Commit 720abae3d68ae ("rcu: force alignment on struct > callback_head/rcu_head") forced the rcu_head (AKA callback_head) > structure's alignment to pointer size, that is, to 4-byte boundaries on > 32-bit systems and to 8-byte boundaries on 64-bit systems. This > commit therefore checks for this same alignment in __call_rcu(), > which used to check for two-byte alignment. > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <ge...@linux-m68k.org> > Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com>
Looks good to me. Acked-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com> -- Kirill A. Shutemov