Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf: Correctly align perf event tracing buffer

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 19:16 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:51:31AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 07:11 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > >  kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c |   11 +++++++++--
> > >  1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c b/kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c
> > > index 0709e4f..69941f3 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c
> > > @@ -15,7 +15,12 @@ EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL_GPL(perf_trace_regs);
> > >  static char *perf_trace_buf;
> > >  static char *perf_trace_buf_nmi;
> > >  
> > > -typedef typeof(char [PERF_MAX_TRACE_SIZE]) perf_trace_t ;
> > > +/*
> > > + * Force it to be aligned to unsigned long to avoid misaligned accesses
> > > + * suprises
> > > + */
> > > +typedef typeof(unsigned long [PERF_MAX_TRACE_SIZE / sizeof(unsigned long)])
> > > +	perf_trace_t;
> > >  
> > 
> > wouldn't __aligned(8) be simpler?
> 
> 
> David and Tejun seemed to prefer to create the alignment on the
> type level rather than using an align.
> 
> I'm personally fine either way.

Also, if you need u64 alignment, shouldn't you use u64 instead of
unsigned long, the alignment requirement on those two might differ on
32bit machines.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/