From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 02:31:22 +0100
> 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?
>
>
> 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.
> At a first glance, what I would except is that every buffer
> has a base address aligned, no?
Make it of the largest type that could appeat
in a trace entry.
I would use u64 so something like:
u64 [FTRACE_MAX_PROFILE_SIZE / sizeof(u64)]
--
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
