[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [GIT RFC] percpu: use dynamic percpu allocator as the default percpu allocator
    Hello, Martin.

    Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
    >>>> With the dynamic percpu allocator there is no need anymore to play
    >>>> tricks with the GOTENT relocation for the access to the percpu
    >>>> symbols. A simple RELOC_HIDE gets the job done.
    >>> Hmm... I don't quite get it. The GOTENT was to work around large
    >>> offsets for modules, right? Can you please explain what changed by
    >>> the dynamic percpu allocator?
    > Unfortunately it didn't change. The problem is still there, only with
    > my particular configuration (and the correct patch) the system did
    > work because the problematic modules were not in use. But in general it
    > won't work.
    > The reason for the GOTENT indirection are static per-cpu variables that
    > are defined inside a module. The compiler considers these to be local.
    > For locally defined per_cpu__#var symbols the compiler uses an
    > instruction that is limited to the scope of a single object, which is
    > +-4 GB. The trick with GOTENT introduced an indirection which hid the
    > problem.
    > Without the GOTENT indirection the access to a static per cpu variable
    > will look like this:
    > 0000000000000000 <test_fn>:
    > 0: e3 30 03 30 00 04 lg %r3,816
    > 6: c0 10 00 00 00 00 larl %r1,6 <test_fn+0x6>
    > 8: R_390_PC32DBL .data.percpu+0x2
    > c: e3 23 10 00 00 04 lg %r2,0(%r3,%r1)
    > The R_390_PC32DBL relocation in the module relocation will fail if the
    > per-cpu area is farther than 4GB away from the vmalloc area.

    Okay, up to this point, I understand, so nothing really changed for
    symbols (core or modules) by the dynamic percpu allocator and they
    still need GOTENT, right?

    > With your patches and a RELOC_HIDE version that uses the GOTENT
    > indirection the kernel won't compile because the "X" constraint for
    > the GOTENT access needs a symbol and there are quite a few users that
    > pass a pointer. I do not see a simple solution for that problem yet.

    Ah... okay. Now I get it. It wasn't expecting variables there. How
    about doing the following?

    #define SHIFT_PERCPU_PTR(ptr, offset) (({ \
    if (__builtin_constant_p(ptr)) \
    do GOTENT trick; \
    else \
    RELOC_HIDE(); \



     \ /
      Last update: 2009-03-25 12:57    [W:0.026 / U:109.528 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site