git@vger.kernel.org mailing list mirror (one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@jrtc27.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mem-pool: Don't assume uintmax_t is aligned enough for all types
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2022 12:17:16 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqsfte8awj.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220123152458.72540-1-jrtc27@jrtc27.com> (Jessica Clarke's message of "Sun, 23 Jan 2022 15:24:58 +0000")

Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@jrtc27.com> writes:

> Currently mem_pool_alloc uses sizeof(uintmax_t) as a proxy for what
> should be _Alignof(max_align_t) in C11. On most architectures this is

Lose "Currently", as the present tense describes the status quo, the
shape of the problematic code we have today that wants improvement
by the proposed patch.

> sufficient (though on m68k it is in fact overly strict, since the
> de-facto ABI, which differs from the specified System V ABI, has the
> maximum alignment of all types as 2 bytes), but on CHERI, and thus Arm's
> Morello prototype, it is insufficient for any type that stores a
> pointer, which must be aligned to 128 bits (on 64-bit architectures
> extended with CHERI), whilst uintmax_t is a 64-bit integer.

OK.

> Fix this by introducing our own approximation for max_align_t and a
> means to compute _Alignof it without relying on C11. Currently this
> union only contains uintmax_t and void *, but more types can be added as
> needed.

Nicely described.

> +/*
> + * The inner union is an approximation for C11's max_align_t, and the
> + * struct + offsetof computes _Alignof. This can all just be replaced
> + * with _Alignof(max_align_t) if/when C11 is part of the baseline.
> + *
> + * Add more types to the union if the current set is insufficient.
> + */
> +struct git_max_alignment {
> +	char unalign;
> +	union {
> +		uintmax_t max_align_uintmax;
> +		void *max_align_pointer;
> +	} aligned;
> +};
> +#define GIT_MAX_ALIGNMENT offsetof(struct git_max_alignment, aligned)
> +

The original computed the alignment requirement for uintmax_t as
sizeof(uintmax_t), not as

	offsetof(struct {
		char unalign;
		union { uintmax_t i; } aligned;
	}, aligned)

because if you have an array of a type, each element of it must be
aligned appropriately already for that type, without the unalignment
the outer struct enforces.  I wonder if your complex offsetof is
equivalent to sizeof(union { uintmax_t u; void *p; })?

IOW, in this struct:

	struct max_alignment_helper {
		char unalign;
		union {
			uintmax_t uintmax_t_unused;
			void *pointer_unused;
		} u[2];
	} s;

both s.u[0] and s.u[1] must be properly aligned, so wouldn't the
alignment requirement for the union type, which can be used to hold
a single value of either uintmax_t or a poinhter, be the distance
between these two array elements, i.e. sizeof(s.u[0])?

To put it differently in yet another way, wouldn't it simplify down
to this?

	union max_alignment_helper {
		uintmax_t uintmax_t_unused;
                void *pointer_unused;
	};
	#define GIT_MAX_ALIGNMENT sizeof(union max_alignment_helper);

I am not saying that the "a forcibly unaligned union in a struct" is
a bad/wrong way to express what you want to achieve.  I just do not
know if there is a reason to choose it over a seemingly simpler
sizeof(that union) without the outer struct and unalign member.

Other than that, looks OK to me.  Especially the parts that use the
macro look correctly converted.

Thanks.

> @@ -69,9 +85,9 @@ void *mem_pool_alloc(struct mem_pool *pool, size_t len)
>  	struct mp_block *p = NULL;
>  	void *r;
>  
> -	/* round up to a 'uintmax_t' alignment */
> -	if (len & (sizeof(uintmax_t) - 1))
> -		len += sizeof(uintmax_t) - (len & (sizeof(uintmax_t) - 1));
> +	/* round up to a 'GIT_MAX_ALIGNMENT' alignment */
> +	if (len & (GIT_MAX_ALIGNMENT - 1))
> +		len += GIT_MAX_ALIGNMENT - (len & (GIT_MAX_ALIGNMENT - 1));
>  
>  	if (pool->mp_block &&
>  	    pool->mp_block->end - pool->mp_block->next_free >= len)


>  /*
>   * Allocate a new mp_block and insert it after the block specified in
>   * `insert_after`. If `insert_after` is NULL, then insert block at the
> @@ -69,9 +85,9 @@ void *mem_pool_alloc(struct mem_pool *pool, size_t len)
>  	struct mp_block *p = NULL;
>  	void *r;
>  
> -	/* round up to a 'uintmax_t' alignment */
> -	if (len & (sizeof(uintmax_t) - 1))
> -		len += sizeof(uintmax_t) - (len & (sizeof(uintmax_t) - 1));
> +	/* round up to a 'GIT_MAX_ALIGNMENT' alignment */
> +	if (len & (GIT_MAX_ALIGNMENT - 1))
> +		len += GIT_MAX_ALIGNMENT - (len & (GIT_MAX_ALIGNMENT - 1));
>  
>  	if (pool->mp_block &&
>  	    pool->mp_block->end - pool->mp_block->next_free >= len)

  reply	other threads:[~2022-01-23 20:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-01-05 13:23 [PATCH] Properly align memory allocations and temporary buffers Jessica Clarke
2022-01-06 21:46 ` Taylor Blau
2022-01-06 21:56   ` Jessica Clarke
2022-01-06 22:27   ` Junio C Hamano
2022-01-06 22:56     ` Jessica Clarke
2022-01-07  0:10       ` Junio C Hamano
2022-01-07  0:22         ` Jessica Clarke
2022-01-07  0:31         ` brian m. carlson
2022-01-07  0:39           ` Jessica Clarke
2022-01-07  1:43             ` brian m. carlson
2022-01-07  2:08               ` Jessica Clarke
2022-01-07  2:11                 ` Jessica Clarke
2022-01-07 19:30               ` Junio C Hamano
2022-01-07 19:33                 ` Jessica Clarke
2022-01-07 20:56                 ` René Scharfe
2022-01-07 21:30                   ` Junio C Hamano
2022-01-07 23:30                     ` René Scharfe
2022-01-08  0:18                       ` Elijah Newren
2022-01-06 23:22 ` brian m. carlson
2022-01-06 23:31   ` Jessica Clarke
2022-01-07 14:57 ` Philip Oakley
2022-01-07 16:08 ` René Scharfe
2022-01-07 16:21   ` Jessica Clarke
2022-01-12 13:58 ` Jessica Clarke
2022-01-12 15:47   ` René Scharfe
2022-01-12 15:49     ` Jessica Clarke
2022-01-23 15:24 ` [PATCH v2] mem-pool: Don't assume uintmax_t is aligned enough for all types Jessica Clarke
2022-01-23 20:17   ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2022-01-23 20:23     ` Jessica Clarke
2022-01-23 20:28       ` Junio C Hamano
2022-01-23 20:33   ` [PATCH v3] " Jessica Clarke
2022-01-24 17:11     ` Junio C Hamano

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=xmqqsfte8awj.fsf@gitster.g \
    --to=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=jrtc27@jrtc27.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).