lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 5/7] irq_work, smp: Allow irq_work on call_single_queue
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 01:40:32AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 06:11:02PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > +/*
> > + * structure shares layout with single_call_data_t.
> > + */
> > struct irq_work {
> > - atomic_t flags;
> > struct llist_node llnode;
> > + atomic_t flags;
>
>
> We should probably have:
>
> struct csd_node {
> atomic_t flags;
> struct llist_node;
> }
>
> embed inside struct irq_work and struct __call_single_data. Relying on
> structure layout for things to work doesn't really clarify things :-)

Yes I know, but changing those structures is going to cause an aweful
lot of churn, and I didn't want to do that just now.. :-(

Also, there's more fun..

CSD_TYPE_SYNC/ASYNC:

struct {
struct llist_node node;
unsigned int flags;
smp_call_func_t func;
void *info;
};

CSD_TYPE_IRQ_WORK:

struct {
struct llist_node node;
atomic_t flags;
void (*func)(struct irq_work *);
};

CSD_TYPE_TTWU:

struct {
struct llist_node node;
unsigned int flags;
};

So while they all have a 'u32' sized @flags, irq_work wants it atomic.
Also, if we were to actually have the struct csd_node {}, you get a 4
byte hole when you embed it in task_struct.

This is all entirely fugly. No doubt about it.

But I failed to find a 'sane' way to express it and needed to get these
patches out because things were broken.

Maybe I can anonymous-union my way around it, dunno. I'll think about
it. I'm certainly not proud of this. But at least the BUILD_BUG_ON()s
should catch the more blatant breakage here.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-29 15:39    [W:0.133 / U:0.440 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site