Gordan Bobic <gordan(a)bobich.net> wrote:
On 12/27/2013 04:02 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 09:53:54AM +0000, Gordan Bobic wrote:
>> How is transparent alignment fixup going to give you back the
>> performance you lose from accesses straddling cache lines?
>
> You can have structs straddling cache lines and causing performance
> problems without alignment issues, or structs being packed too close
> together causing false sharing again w/o alignment being involved.
>
> If alignment problems cause performance issues, then we should deal
> with those performance problems. If they don't, we shouldn't worry
> about them.
>
> Rich.
>
> ObHack: I once worked with an architecture [68k-based VME hardware]
> that not only faulted on unaligned access, but also on accesses of
the
> wrong *size* (eg. using a short-sized read instruction instead of a
> word-sized read instruction). Dealing with that nonsense involved a
> lot of compiler-specific massaging of code and some inline assembly
...
I'm very glad you mentioned compilers - this is in fact easily fixable
at compiler level. Intel's ICC has an option to make all arrays and
No, if your code takes the approach to cast the struct pointer into a byte stream, the
struct pointer itself can be unaligned.
Your compiler can do nothing about that, you have to touch the members using bytewise
accessors to be compatible with SoCs that don't fix up unaligned access properly.
structs always aligned to a boundary (up to 16 byte, IIRC). If GCC
were
to implement such a feature the problem could be made to go away
without
actually addressing the underlying cause of the problem. It might be a
bodge, but since complete fix of the underlying problem isn't going to
happen anyway, a good bodge would be a lot better than doing nothing.
What's wrong with you sending patches to the upstream?
-Andy
Gordan
_______________________________________________
arm mailing list
arm(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm