Re: [PATCH 0/2] jump label: update for .39

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 15:47 -0500, Jason Baron wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Re-fresh of updates against latest -tip tree.
> 
> Thanks Jason,
> 
> I started looking at them, I should have comments tomorrow (if I have
> any comments ;)
> 
> > 
> > I've tried to split this update up somewhat, but I've only succeeded to split
> > out the dynamic debug bits. The interface changes and re-write are quite
> > intertwined.
> > 
> > I believe this update should address all the comments from the previous posting
> > except for Mathieu's request for a section of jump label pointers that point to
> > the jump label structures (since the compiler might leave gaps in the jump label
> > structures).
> 
> The jump label structures is a list of 3 pointers, correct? I doubt that
> gcc would place any holes in it as they are all aligned by natural word
> size.
> 

Hi Steven,

Can you explain what would prevent gcc from aligning these 3 pointers
(total of 24 bytes on 64-bit architectures) on 32-bytes ? Also, could
you point out what would refrain the linker from aligning the start of
object sections on the next 32-bytes (thus power of two) address
multiple ?

I think we need to be a bit more strict in our interpretation of what
guarantee gcc/ld provide and don't provide with respect to section and
structure alignment.

As it stands now, the section alignment of jump labels looks half-broken
on most architectures, and this *is* a big deal. I would really like to
see a patch for this (it can be a separate patch) going in for .39.

Thank you,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/