Re: [PATCH 12/35] workqueue: update cwq alignement

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 06:09:35PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On 06/29/2010 06:01 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > So, imagine you allocate your struct with alloc_percpu(align).
> > 
> > The per cpu pointer is 0x400 (purely imagination).
> > 
> > Now you have two cpus and they have the following base offsets for
> > per cpu allocations:
> > 
> > CPU 0 = 0xf1000000
> > CPU 1 = 0xf2000000
> > 
> > So, the true pointers for your cpu workqueue structs will be:
> > 
> > CPU 0 = 0xf1000400
> > CPU 1 = 0xf2000400
> > 
> > These addresses are aligned like you wanted to, and it seems it is what
> > matters, to store these addresses in the work flags.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > So why does the size of the struct need to be aligned too?
> 
> Where am I doing that?


Ah well, yesterday there was a BUILD_BUG_ON on init_workqueues that checked
this structure size was well aligned. Now that I check again, it seems to have
disappeared after you updated the patch.



> 
> > All you want is that the two above addresses are aligned. Now why
> > the size of the struct itself needs this alignment too. That's the
> > obscure point for me. If it's useless, this could avoid all this
> > alignment maintainance, except during the allocation itself.
> 
> What alignment maintenance?  Are you talking about the UP code?  If
> you're talking about the UP code, the ugliness there is because the
> current UP __alloc_percpu() can't honor the alignment parameter.


Heh no, it's about a leftover in your patchset that you have fixed
now.


> Heh, it seems I'm still lost.  Care to give one more shot at it?  :-)


My bad, I haven't looked your updated patch in detail... :)

--
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/