Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: Fix struct page layout on 32-bit systems
From: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>
Date: 2021-04-14 11:56:13
Also in:
linux-mips, linux-mm, linuxppc-dev, lkml, netdev
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 12:50:52PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 10:10:44AM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:quoted
Yes, indeed! - And very frustrating. It's keeping me up at night. I'm dreaming about 32 vs 64 bit data structures. My fitbit stats tell me that I don't sleep well with these kind of dreams ;-)Then you're going to love this ... even with the latest patch, there's still a problem. Because dma_addr_t is still 64-bit aligned _as a type_, that forces the union to be 64-bit aligned (as we already knew and worked around), but what I'd forgotten is that forces the entirety of struct page to be 64-bit aligned. Which means ... /* size: 40, cachelines: 1, members: 4 */ /* padding: 4 */ /* forced alignments: 1 */ /* last cacheline: 40 bytes */ } __attribute__((__aligned__(8))); .. that we still have a hole! It's just moved from being at offset 4 to being at offset 36.quoted
That said, I think we need to have a quicker fix for the immediate issue with 64-bit bit dma_addr on 32-bit arch and the misalignment hole it leaves[3] in struct page. In[3] you mention ppc32, does it only happens on certain 32-bit archs?AFAICT it happens on mips32, ppc32, arm32 and arc. It doesn't happen on x86-32 because dma_addr_t is 32-bit aligned. Doing this fixes it:+++ b/include/linux/types.h@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ typedef u64 blkcnt_t; * so they don't care about the size of the actual bus addresses. */ #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT -typedef u64 dma_addr_t; +typedef u64 __attribute__((aligned(sizeof(void *)))) dma_addr_t; #else typedef u32 dma_addr_t; #endifquoted
I'm seriously considering removing page_pool's support for doing/keeping DMA-mappings on 32-bit arch's. AFAIK only a single driver use this.... if you're going to do that, then we don't need to do this.
FWIW I already proposed that to Matthew in private a few days ago... II am not even sure the AM572x has that support. I'd much prefer getting rid of it as well, instead of overcomplicating the struct for a device noone is going to need. Cheers /Ilias _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel