On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 11:43 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Monday 05 March 2012, Alex Shi wrote:
> > > Subject: [PATCH] lockdep: add cross cache lines checking
> > >
> > > Modern x86 CPU won't hold whole memory bus when executing
> > > 'lock' prefixed instructions unless the instruction
> > > destination is crossing 2 cache lines. If so, it is disaster
> > > of system performance.
> > >
> > > Actually if the lock is not in the 'packed' structure, gcc
> > > places it safely under x86 arch. But seems add this checking
> > > in CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC is harmless.
> >
> > Have you tried making this a compile-time check using
> > __alignof__? I would say that any spinlock in a packed data
> > structure is basically a bug, even more so on most other
> > architectures besides x86.
I have one concern and one questions here:
concern: maybe the lock is in a well designed 'packed' struct, and it is
safe for cross lines issue. but __alignof__ will return 1;
struct abc{
raw_spinlock_t lock1;
char a;
char b;
}__attribute__((packed));
Since the lock is the first object of struct, usually it is well placed.
question: I am a idiot on gcc, I tried some parameters of gcc " --param
l1-cache-line-size=1 -mno-align-double" and can not make a cross lines
variable without 'packed' structure, but I still don't find a grantee
why gcc can avoid the cross line variable if it's not in 'packed'
structure?
> agreed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
