Re: Bogus struct page layout on 32-bit
From: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org>
Date: 2021-04-10 08:53:04
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-fsdevel, linux-mm, lkml, netdev, oe-kbuild-all
+CC Grygorii for the cpsw part as Ivan's email is not valid anymore Thanks for catching this. Interesting indeed... On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 at 09:22, Jesper Dangaard Brouer [off-list ref] wrote:
On Sat, 10 Apr 2021 03:43:13 +0100 Matthew Wilcox [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 06:45:35AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:quoted
quoted
quoted
include/linux/mm_types.h:274:1: error: static_assert failed due to requirement '__builtin_offsetof(struct page, lru) == __builtin_offsetof(struct folio, lru)' "offsetof(struct page, lru) == offsetof(struct folio, lru)"FOLIO_MATCH(lru, lru); include/linux/mm_types.h:272:2: note: expanded from macro 'FOLIO_MATCH' static_assert(offsetof(struct page, pg) == offsetof(struct folio, fl))Well, this is interesting. pahole reports: struct page { long unsigned int flags; /* 0 4 */ /* XXX 4 bytes hole, try to pack */ union { struct { struct list_head lru; /* 8 8 */ ... struct folio { union { struct { long unsigned int flags; /* 0 4 */ struct list_head lru; /* 4 8 */ so this assert has absolutely done its job. But why has this assert triggered? Why is struct page layout not what we thought it was? Turns out it's the dma_addr added in 2019 by commit c25fff7171be ("mm: add dma_addr_t to struct page"). On this particular config, it's 64-bit, and ppc32 requires alignment to 64-bit. So the whole union gets moved out by 4 bytes.Argh, good that you are catching this!quoted
Unfortunately, we can't just fix this by putting an 'unsigned long pad' in front of it. It still aligns the entire union to 8 bytes, and then it skips another 4 bytes after the pad. We can fix it like this ...+++ b/include/linux/mm_types.h@@ -96,11 +96,12 @@ struct page { unsigned long private; }; struct { /* page_pool used by netstack */ + unsigned long _page_pool_pad;I'm fine with this pad. Matteo is currently proposing[1] to add a 32-bit value after @dma_addr, and he could use this area instead. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20210409223801.104657-3-mcroce@linux.microsoft.com/ (local) When adding/changing this, we need to make sure that it doesn't overlap member @index, because network stack use/check page_is_pfmemalloc(). As far as my calculations this is safe to add. I always try to keep an eye out for this, but I wonder if we could have a build check like yours.quoted
/** * @dma_addr: might require a 64-bit value even on * 32-bit architectures. */ - dma_addr_t dma_addr; + dma_addr_t dma_addr __packed; }; struct { /* slab, slob and slub */ union { but I don't know if GCC is smart enough to realise that dma_addr is now on an 8 byte boundary and it can use a normal instruction to access it, or whether it'll do something daft like use byte loads to access it. We could also do: + dma_addr_t dma_addr __packed __aligned(sizeof(void *)); and I see pahole, at least sees this correctly: struct { long unsigned int _page_pool_pad; /* 4 4 */ dma_addr_t dma_addr __attribute__((__aligned__(4))); /* 8 8 */ } __attribute__((__packed__)) __attribute__((__aligned__(4))); This presumably affects any 32-bit architecture with a 64-bit phys_addr_t / dma_addr_t. Advice, please?I'm not sure that the 32-bit behavior is with 64-bit (dma) addrs. I don't have any 32-bit boards with 64-bit DMA. Cc. Ivan, wasn't your board (572x ?) 32-bit with driver 'cpsw' this case (where Ivan added XDP+page_pool) ? -- Best regards, Jesper Dangaard Brouer MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer