[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/6] perf: Add new type PERF_TYPE_PROBE
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:31:29PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> unfortunately 32-bit is more screwed than it seems:
> $ cat align.c
> #include <stdio.h>
> struct S {
> unsigned long long a;
> } s;
> struct U {
> unsigned long long a;
> } u;
> int main()
> {
> printf("%d, %d\n", sizeof(unsigned long long),
> __alignof__(unsigned long long));
> printf("%d, %d\n", sizeof(s), __alignof__(s));
> printf("%d, %d\n", sizeof(u), __alignof__(u));
> }
> $ gcc -m32 align.c
> $ ./a.out
> 8, 8
> 8, 4
> 8, 4

*blink* how is that even correct? I understood the spec to say the
alignment of composite types should be the max alignment of any of its
member types (otherwise it cannot guarantee the alignment of its

> so we have to use __aligned_u64 in uapi.

Ideally yes, but effectively it most often doesn't matter.

> Otherwise, yes, we could have used config1 and config2 to pass pointers
> to the kernel, but since they're defined as __u64 already we cannot
> change them and have to do this ugly dance around 'config' field.

I don't understand the reasoning why you cannot use them. Even if they
are not naturally aligned on x86_32, why would it matter?

x86_32 needs two loads in any case, but there is no concurrency, so
split loads is not a problem. Add to that that 'intptr_t' on ILP32
is in fact only a single u32 and thus the other u32 will always be 0.

So yes, alignment is screwy, but I really don't see who cares and why it
would matter in practise.

Please explain.

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-24 09:30    [W:0.071 / U:0.252 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site