Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 17:30:21 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> To: attilio@FreeBSD.org Cc: mdf@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, svn-src-user@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r241889 - in user/andre/tcp_workqueue/sys: arm/arm cddl/compat/opensolaris/kern cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/dtrace cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs ddb dev/acpica dev/... Message-ID: <5088098D.9070206@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-FndC=zV%2BHN1wr_CnSEY93VHT--w9cYPMhH8P53y%2BLvBSO7g@mail.gmail.com> References: <201210221418.q9MEINkr026751@svn.freebsd.org> <201210241005.38977.jhb@freebsd.org> <CAJ-FndBENEuyaH%2B2Q%2Bigj39tdGmsHh=3arL-Cb2GP3i9WSr_hQ@mail.gmail.com> <201210241045.39211.jhb@freebsd.org> <CAJ-FndC=zV%2BHN1wr_CnSEY93VHT--w9cYPMhH8P53y%2BLvBSO7g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 24.10.2012 17:09, Attilio Rao wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:45 PM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 10:34:34 am Attilio Rao wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:05 PM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 7:20:04 pm Andre Oppermann wrote:
>>>>> On 24.10.2012 00:15, mdf@FreeBSD.org wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Struct mtx and MTX_SYSINIT always occur as pair next to each other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That doesn't matter. Language basics like variable definitions should
>>>>>> not be obscured by macros. It either takes longer to figure out what
>>>>>> a variable is (because one needs to look up the definition of the
>>>>>> macro) or makes it almost impossible (because now e.g. cscope doesn't
>>>>>> know this is a variable definition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sigh, cscope doesn't expand macros?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a way to do the cache line alignment in a sane way without
>>>>> littering __aligned(CACHE_LINE_SIZE) all over the place?
>>>>
>>>> I was hoping to do something with an anonymous union or some such like:
>>>>
>>>> union mtx_aligned {
>>>> struct mtx;
>>>> char[roundup2(sizeof(struct mtx), CACHE_LINE_SIZE)];
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if there is a useful way to define an 'aligned mutex' type
>>>> that will transparently map to a 'struct mtx', e.g.:
>>>>
>>>> typedef struct mtx __aligned(CACHE_LINE_SIZE) aligned_mtx_t;
>>>
>>> Unfortunately that doesn't work as I've verified with alc@ few months ago.
>>> The __aligned() attribute only works with structures definition, not
>>> objects declaration.
>>
>> Are you saying that the typedef doesn't (I expect it doesn't), or that this
>> doesn't:
>>
>> struct mtx foo __aligned(CACHE_LINE_SIZE);
>
> I meant to say that such notation won't address the padding issue
> which is as import as the alignment. Infact, for sensitive locks,
> having just an aligned object is not really useful if the cacheline
> gets shared.
As far as I understand __aligned() not only aligns the start of the
object but also ensures that is padded on a multiple of the alignment
after the object. So explicit padding after it is not necessary.
> In the end you will need to use explicit padding or use __aligned in
> the struct definition, which cannot be used as a general pattern.
--
Andre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5088098D.9070206>