Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Mon, 1 Apr 2024 10:56:14 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/mm/pae: Align up pteval_t, pmdval_t and pudval_t to avoid split locks | From | Dave Hansen <> |
| |
On 4/1/24 09:57, Javier Pello wrote: > -typedef u64 pteval_t; > -typedef u64 pmdval_t; > -typedef u64 pudval_t; > -typedef u64 p4dval_t; > -typedef u64 pgdval_t; > -typedef u64 pgprotval_t; > +/* > + * Variables of these types are subject to atomic compare-and-exchange > + * operations, so they have to be properly aligned to avoid split locks. > + */ > +typedef u64 pteval_t __aligned(8); > +typedef u64 pmdval_t __aligned(8); > +typedef u64 pudval_t __aligned(8); > +typedef u64 p4dval_t __aligned(8); > +typedef u64 pgdval_t __aligned(8); > +typedef u64 pgprotval_t __aligned(8);
First of all, how is it that you're running a PAE kernel on new, 64-bit hardware? That's rather odd.
The case that you're hitting is actually an on-stack pmd_t. The fun part is that it's not shared and doesn't even _need_ atomics. I think it's just using pmd_populate() because it's convenient.
I'd honestly much rather just disable split lock support in 32-bit builds than mess with this stuff. You really shouldn't be running 32-but kernels on this hardware.
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |