On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 14:43 +0000, Attilio Rao wrote: > On 11/1/12, Ian Lepore <free...@damnhippie.dyndns.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 14:07 +0000, Attilio Rao wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Attilio Rao <atti...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Ian Lepore > >> > <free...@damnhippie.dyndns.org> wrote: > >> >> On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 10:42 +0000, Attilio Rao wrote: > >> >>> On 11/1/12, Gleb Smirnoff <gleb...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> >>> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 06:33:51PM +0000, Attilio Rao wrote: > >> >>> > A> > Doesn't this padding to cache line size only help x86 > >> >>> > processors in an > >> >>> > A> > SMP kernel? I was expecting to see some #ifdef SMP so that we > >> >>> > don't > >> >>> > pay > >> >>> > A> > a big price for no gain in small-memory ARM systems and such. > >> >>> > But > >> >>> > maybe > >> >>> > A> > I'm misunderstanding the reason for the padding. > >> >>> > A> > >> >>> > A> I didn't want to do this because this would be meaning that SMP > >> >>> > option > >> >>> > A> may become a completely killer for modules/kernel ABI > >> >>> > compatibility. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > Do we support loading non-SMP modules on SMP kernel and vice versa? > >> >>> > >> >>> Actually that's my point, we do. > >> >>> > >> >>> Attilio > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> Well we've got other similar problems lurking then. What about a > >> >> module > >> >> compiled on an arm system that had #define CACHE_LINE_SIZE 32 and then > >> >> it gets run on a different arm system whose kernel is compiled with > >> >> #define CACHE_LINE_SIZE 64? > >> > > >> > That should not happen. Is that a real case where you build a module > >> > for an ARM family and want to run against a kernel compiled for > >> > another? > >> > >> Besides that, the ARM CACHE_LINE_SIZE is defined in the shared headers > >> so there is no way this can be a problem. > > > > I've been under the impression that in the ARM and MIPS worlds, the > > cache line size can change from one family/series of chips to another, > > just as support for SMP can change from one family to another. If I'm > > not mistaken in that assumption, then there can't be something like a > > generic arm module that will run on any arm kernel regardless of how the > > kernel was built, not if compile-time constants get cooked into the > > binaries in a way that affects the ABI/KBI. > > I'm far from being an ARM expert so I trust what you say. > This only means you cannot build a module for a family and expect to > retain ABI compatibility among all the ARM families. If cache-lines > are different I don't think there is much we can do, which has nothing > to do with pad-align locking. >
I do a lot of work with armv4 and recently v5 chips, but nothing with the v6/v7 stuff yet, so I'm not really an expert on these issues either. I've heard some talk from the folks working on arm v6/v7 support about things like unified kernels and an arm GENERIC kernel config, but I'm pretty hazy myself on how that vision is shaping up. -- Ian _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"