diff options
author | Stephen Kitt <steve@sk2.org> | 2020-05-15 23:24:44 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> | 2020-05-25 18:59:59 -0600 |
commit | 997c798e1444ad02e8af8b18c869fff5c61867da (patch) | |
tree | c59a8893adf9e6484c714e8faa9aa22407e64a5e /Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt | |
parent | 4eb9241127a0b5ac3aaaf1b246728009527ebc86 (diff) | |
download | linux-997c798e1444ad02e8af8b18c869fff5c61867da.tar.bz2 |
docs: sysctl/kernel: document unaligned controls
This documents ignore-unaligned-usertrap, unaligned-dump-stack, and
unaligned-trap, based on arch/arc/kernel/unaligned.c,
arch/ia64/kernel/unaligned.c, and arch/parisc/kernel/unaligned.c.
While we're at it, integrate unaligned-memory-access.txt into the docs
tree.
Signed-off-by: Stephen Kitt <steve@sk2.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200515212443.5012-1-steve@sk2.org
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt | 265 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 265 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt b/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 1ee82419d8aa..000000000000 --- a/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,265 +0,0 @@ -========================= -Unaligned Memory Accesses -========================= - -:Author: Daniel Drake <dsd@gentoo.org>, -:Author: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> - -:With help from: Alan Cox, Avuton Olrich, Heikki Orsila, Jan Engelhardt, - Kyle McMartin, Kyle Moffett, Randy Dunlap, Robert Hancock, Uli Kunitz, - Vadim Lobanov - - -Linux runs on a wide variety of architectures which have varying behaviour -when it comes to memory access. This document presents some details about -unaligned accesses, why you need to write code that doesn't cause them, -and how to write such code! - - -The definition of an unaligned access -===================================== - -Unaligned memory accesses occur when you try to read N bytes of data starting -from an address that is not evenly divisible by N (i.e. addr % N != 0). -For example, reading 4 bytes of data from address 0x10004 is fine, but -reading 4 bytes of data from address 0x10005 would be an unaligned memory -access. - -The above may seem a little vague, as memory access can happen in different -ways. The context here is at the machine code level: certain instructions read -or write a number of bytes to or from memory (e.g. movb, movw, movl in x86 -assembly). As will become clear, it is relatively easy to spot C statements -which will compile to multiple-byte memory access instructions, namely when -dealing with types such as u16, u32 and u64. - - -Natural alignment -================= - -The rule mentioned above forms what we refer to as natural alignment: -When accessing N bytes of memory, the base memory address must be evenly -divisible by N, i.e. addr % N == 0. - -When writing code, assume the target architecture has natural alignment -requirements. - -In reality, only a few architectures require natural alignment on all sizes -of memory access. However, we must consider ALL supported architectures; -writing code that satisfies natural alignment requirements is the easiest way -to achieve full portability. - - -Why unaligned access is bad -=========================== - -The effects of performing an unaligned memory access vary from architecture -to architecture. It would be easy to write a whole document on the differences -here; a summary of the common scenarios is presented below: - - - Some architectures are able to perform unaligned memory accesses - transparently, but there is usually a significant performance cost. - - Some architectures raise processor exceptions when unaligned accesses - happen. The exception handler is able to correct the unaligned access, - at significant cost to performance. - - Some architectures raise processor exceptions when unaligned accesses - happen, but the exceptions do not contain enough information for the - unaligned access to be corrected. - - Some architectures are not capable of unaligned memory access, but will - silently perform a different memory access to the one that was requested, - resulting in a subtle code bug that is hard to detect! - -It should be obvious from the above that if your code causes unaligned -memory accesses to happen, your code will not work correctly on certain -platforms and will cause performance problems on others. - - -Code that does not cause unaligned access -========================================= - -At first, the concepts above may seem a little hard to relate to actual -coding practice. After all, you don't have a great deal of control over -memory addresses of certain variables, etc. - -Fortunately things are not too complex, as in most cases, the compiler -ensures that things will work for you. For example, take the following -structure:: - - struct foo { - u16 field1; - u32 field2; - u8 field3; - }; - -Let us assume that an instance of the above structure resides in memory -starting at address 0x10000. With a basic level of understanding, it would -not be unreasonable to expect that accessing field2 would cause an unaligned -access. You'd be expecting field2 to be located at offset 2 bytes into the -structure, i.e. address 0x10002, but that address is not evenly divisible -by 4 (remember, we're reading a 4 byte value here). - -Fortunately, the compiler understands the alignment constraints, so in the -above case it would insert 2 bytes of padding in between field1 and field2. -Therefore, for standard structure types you can always rely on the compiler -to pad structures so that accesses to fields are suitably aligned (assuming -you do not cast the field to a type of different length). - -Similarly, you can also rely on the compiler to align variables and function -parameters to a naturally aligned scheme, based on the size of the type of -the variable. - -At this point, it should be clear that accessing a single byte (u8 or char) -will never cause an unaligned access, because all memory addresses are evenly -divisible by one. - -On a related topic, with the above considerations in mind you may observe -that you could reorder the fields in the structure in order to place fields -where padding would otherwise be inserted, and hence reduce the overall -resident memory size of structure instances. The optimal layout of the -above example is:: - - struct foo { - u32 field2; - u16 field1; - u8 field3; - }; - -For a natural alignment scheme, the compiler would only have to add a single -byte of padding at the end of the structure. This padding is added in order -to satisfy alignment constraints for arrays of these structures. - -Another point worth mentioning is the use of __attribute__((packed)) on a -structure type. This GCC-specific attribute tells the compiler never to -insert any padding within structures, useful when you want to use a C struct -to represent some data that comes in a fixed arrangement 'off the wire'. - -You might be inclined to believe that usage of this attribute can easily -lead to unaligned accesses when accessing fields that do not satisfy -architectural alignment requirements. However, again, the compiler is aware -of the alignment constraints and will generate extra instructions to perform -the memory access in a way that does not cause unaligned access. Of course, -the extra instructions obviously cause a loss in performance compared to the -non-packed case, so the packed attribute should only be used when avoiding -structure padding is of importance. - - -Code that causes unaligned access -================================= - -With the above in mind, let's move onto a real life example of a function -that can cause an unaligned memory access. The following function taken -from include/linux/etherdevice.h is an optimized routine to compare two -ethernet MAC addresses for equality:: - - bool ether_addr_equal(const u8 *addr1, const u8 *addr2) - { - #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS - u32 fold = ((*(const u32 *)addr1) ^ (*(const u32 *)addr2)) | - ((*(const u16 *)(addr1 + 4)) ^ (*(const u16 *)(addr2 + 4))); - - return fold == 0; - #else - const u16 *a = (const u16 *)addr1; - const u16 *b = (const u16 *)addr2; - return ((a[0] ^ b[0]) | (a[1] ^ b[1]) | (a[2] ^ b[2])) == 0; - #endif - } - -In the above function, when the hardware has efficient unaligned access -capability, there is no issue with this code. But when the hardware isn't -able to access memory on arbitrary boundaries, the reference to a[0] causes -2 bytes (16 bits) to be read from memory starting at address addr1. - -Think about what would happen if addr1 was an odd address such as 0x10003. -(Hint: it'd be an unaligned access.) - -Despite the potential unaligned access problems with the above function, it -is included in the kernel anyway but is understood to only work normally on -16-bit-aligned addresses. It is up to the caller to ensure this alignment or -not use this function at all. This alignment-unsafe function is still useful -as it is a decent optimization for the cases when you can ensure alignment, -which is true almost all of the time in ethernet networking context. - - -Here is another example of some code that could cause unaligned accesses:: - - void myfunc(u8 *data, u32 value) - { - [...] - *((u32 *) data) = cpu_to_le32(value); - [...] - } - -This code will cause unaligned accesses every time the data parameter points -to an address that is not evenly divisible by 4. - -In summary, the 2 main scenarios where you may run into unaligned access -problems involve: - - 1. Casting variables to types of different lengths - 2. Pointer arithmetic followed by access to at least 2 bytes of data - - -Avoiding unaligned accesses -=========================== - -The easiest way to avoid unaligned access is to use the get_unaligned() and -put_unaligned() macros provided by the <asm/unaligned.h> header file. - -Going back to an earlier example of code that potentially causes unaligned -access:: - - void myfunc(u8 *data, u32 value) - { - [...] - *((u32 *) data) = cpu_to_le32(value); - [...] - } - -To avoid the unaligned memory access, you would rewrite it as follows:: - - void myfunc(u8 *data, u32 value) - { - [...] - value = cpu_to_le32(value); - put_unaligned(value, (u32 *) data); - [...] - } - -The get_unaligned() macro works similarly. Assuming 'data' is a pointer to -memory and you wish to avoid unaligned access, its usage is as follows:: - - u32 value = get_unaligned((u32 *) data); - -These macros work for memory accesses of any length (not just 32 bits as -in the examples above). Be aware that when compared to standard access of -aligned memory, using these macros to access unaligned memory can be costly in -terms of performance. - -If use of such macros is not convenient, another option is to use memcpy(), -where the source or destination (or both) are of type u8* or unsigned char*. -Due to the byte-wise nature of this operation, unaligned accesses are avoided. - - -Alignment vs. Networking -======================== - -On architectures that require aligned loads, networking requires that the IP -header is aligned on a four-byte boundary to optimise the IP stack. For -regular ethernet hardware, the constant NET_IP_ALIGN is used. On most -architectures this constant has the value 2 because the normal ethernet -header is 14 bytes long, so in order to get proper alignment one needs to -DMA to an address which can be expressed as 4*n + 2. One notable exception -here is powerpc which defines NET_IP_ALIGN to 0 because DMA to unaligned -addresses can be very expensive and dwarf the cost of unaligned loads. - -For some ethernet hardware that cannot DMA to unaligned addresses like -4*n+2 or non-ethernet hardware, this can be a problem, and it is then -required to copy the incoming frame into an aligned buffer. Because this is -unnecessary on architectures that can do unaligned accesses, the code can be -made dependent on CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS like so:: - - #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_EFFICIENT_UNALIGNED_ACCESS - skb = original skb - #else - skb = copy skb - #endif |