Hello,
On 03/19/2010 10:31 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 05:54:13PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:30:34 +0900
>>
>>>
>>> if (!total_profile_count) {
>>> - buf = (char *)alloc_percpu(perf_trace_t);
>>> + buf = (char *)__alloc_percpu(sizeof(perf_trace_t),
>>> + __alignof__(unsigned long));
>>> if (!buf)
>>> goto fail_buf;
>>
>> Why not make perf_trace_t have the proper alignment?
Sure, I just wanted to verify the cause of the problem.
> So, making perf_trace_t as align(8) would do the trick?
> I lack the knowledge about alignment layout for archs that
> need aligned accesses.
If you can't make it a proper type, __alignof__(unsigned long long)
would be better.
> Yeah but we need a generic type. This is because
> our buffer can be of any random type to match all
> the trace event layouts we have, all of them being
> generated by macros.
I hope those macros align properly according to types.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
