Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1433402
| From | Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC/PATCH v2] ftrace: Reduce size of function graph entries |
| Date | 2016-06-29 04:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rPcXf-6eR-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rOTUC-2AT-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <rPaLM-516-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <rPcDT-68s-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 10:32:34 +0900 Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote: > > is at 32-37 > > > > For a total of 38 bytes. I'm betting that without the packed, the 4 > > extra bytes will always be at the end. > > Woundn't it be 36 or 40 bytes? :) Ug, don't know what I was counting then. I added the 64 bit version as a after thought. > > > > > If the compiler places it incorrectly without any attribute, it will > > fail to read the long long if the arch requires 64 bits to be 8 bytes > > aligned. The alignment is meaningless here. All we need is "packed" and > > be done with it. It's only going to truncate the 4 bytes at the end of > > the structure if that. > > I agree that in-struct alignment preserved without the 'aligned' > attribute but I'm not sure whether it's guaranteed that the *start* > address of the struct is still in proper alignment boundary. > > IOW the struct ftrace_graph_ret should be placed at 8-byte boundary in order > to keep alignment of struct members. Is it guaranteed after applying > 'packed'? > My point is, a structure doesn't change size depending on where it is located. Thus, if a structure contains a 8 byte field, that must be 8 bytes aligned due to architecture constraints, then it had better be aligned that way everywhere. If it is not, then accessing the 8 byte fields will cause issues. The only thing that the "packed" changes, is it removes the last 4 padded bytes of the structure. It doesn't change anything else. Hence, the alignment is just extra and unneeded. -- Steve
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[RFC/PATCH v2] ftrace: Reduce size of function graph entries Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> - 2016-06-28 07:40 +0200
Re: [RFC/PATCH v2] ftrace: Reduce size of function graph entries Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2016-06-29 01:40 +0200
Re: [RFC/PATCH v2] ftrace: Reduce size of function graph entries Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> - 2016-06-29 03:40 +0200
Re: [RFC/PATCH v2] ftrace: Reduce size of function graph entries Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2016-06-29 04:00 +0200
Re: [RFC/PATCH v2] ftrace: Reduce size of function graph entries Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> - 2016-06-29 04:40 +0200
Re: [RFC/PATCH v2] ftrace: Reduce size of function graph entries Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2016-06-29 05:30 +0200
csiph-web