alignment faults in 3.6

[Rob Herring]

On 10/05/2012 03:24 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 09:20:56AM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote:
>> On 5 October 2012 08:12, Russell King - ARM Linux
>> <linux at arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 03:25:16AM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote:
>>>> On 5 October 2012 02:56, Rob Herring <robherring2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> This struct is the IP header, so a struct ptr is just set to the
>>>>> beginning of the received data. Since ethernet headers are 14 bytes,
>>>>> often the IP header is not aligned unless the NIC can place the frame at
>>>>> a 2 byte offset (which is something I need to investigate). So this
>>>>> function cannot make any assumptions about the alignment. Does the ABI
>>>>> define structs have some minimum alignment? Does the struct need to be
>>>>> declared as packed or something?
>>>>
>>>> The ABI defines the alignment of structs as the maximum alignment of its
>>>> members.  Since this struct contains 32-bit members, the alignment for the
>>>> whole struct becomes 32 bits as well.  Declaring it as packed tells gcc it
>>>> might be unaligned (in addition to removing any holes within).
>>>
>>> This has come up before in the past.
>>>
>>> The Linux network folk will _not_ allow - in any shape or form - for
>>> this struct to be marked packed (it's the struct which needs to be
>>> marked packed) because by doing so, it causes GCC to issue byte loads/
>>> stores on architectures where there isn't a problem, and that decreases
>>> the performance of the Linux IP stack unnecessarily.
>>
>> Which architectures?  I have never seen anything like that.
> 
> Does it matter?  I'm just relaying the argument against adding __packed
> which was used before we were forced (by the networking folk) to implement
> the alignment fault handler.

It doesn't really matter what will be accepted or not as adding __packed
to struct iphdr doesn't fix the problem anyway. gcc still emits a ldm.
The only way I've found to eliminate the alignment fault is adding a
barrier between the 2 loads. That seems like a compiler issue to me if
there is not a better fix.

Rob