From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
Cc: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Norbert Manthey <nmanthey@amazon.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: v4.16+ seeing many unaligned access in dequeue_task_fair() on IA64
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 18:53:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180404165310.GJ4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180404163855.3obxjshmrlppzhdp@agluck-desk>
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 09:38:56AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 09:25:13AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Right, I remember being careful with that. Which again brings me to the
> > RANDSTRUCT thing, which will mess that up.
>
> No RANDSTRUCT config options set for my build.
Weird though, with or without that patch, my ia64-defconfig gives the
below layout.
$ pahole -EC sched_avg ia64-defconfig/kernel/sched/core.o
die__process_function: tag not supported (INVALID)!
struct sched_avg {
/* typedef u64 */ long long unsigned int last_update_time; /* 0 8 */
/* typedef u64 */ long long unsigned int load_sum; /* 8 8 */
/* typedef u64 */ long long unsigned int runnable_load_sum; /* 16 8 */
/* typedef u32 */ unsigned int util_sum; /* 24 4 */
/* typedef u32 */ unsigned int period_contrib; /* 28 4 */
long unsigned int load_avg; /* 32 8 */
long unsigned int runnable_load_avg; /* 40 8 */
long unsigned int util_avg; /* 48 8 */
struct util_est {
unsigned int enqueued; /* 56 4 */
unsigned int ewma; /* 60 4 */
} util_est; /* 56 8 */
/* --- cacheline 1 boundary (64 bytes) --- */
/* size: 64, cachelines: 1, members: 9 */
};
> > Does the below cure things? It makes absolutely no difference for my
> > x86_64-defconfig build, but it puts more explicit alignment constraints
> > on things.
>
> Yes. That fixes it. No unaligned traps with this patch applied.
>
> Tested-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Awesome, I'll go get it merged, even though I don't understand where it
went wobbly.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-04 16:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-02 23:24 Luck, Tony
2018-04-02 23:39 ` Luck, Tony
2018-04-03 7:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-03 18:58 ` Luck, Tony
2018-04-04 0:04 ` Luck, Tony
2018-04-04 7:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-04 16:38 ` Luck, Tony
2018-04-04 16:53 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2018-04-05 8:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-04-05 8:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-04-05 9:18 ` [tip:sched/urgent] sched/core: Force proper alignment of 'struct util_est' tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180404165310.GJ4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=nmanthey@amazon.de \
--cc=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome