Re: [PATCH] slab: Fix too strict alignment check in create_cache()

[Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>]

On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 09:45:52AM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 11:22:58AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 11:08:54AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 07:50:33PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 7:30 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 09:23:28AM -0800, Christoph Lameter (Ampere) wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 21 Nov 2024, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > > > > Linux has supported m68k since last century.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah I fondly remember the 80s where 68K systems were always out of reach
> > > > > > for me to have. The dream system that I never could get my hands on. The
> > > > > > creme de la creme du jour. I just had to be content with the 6800 and
> > > > > > 6502 processors. Then IBM started the sick road down the 8088, 8086
> > > > > > that led from crap to more crap. Sigh.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any new such assumptions are fixed quickly (at least in the kernel).
> > > > > > > If you need a specific alignment, make sure to use __aligned and/or
> > > > > > > appropriate padding in structures.
> > > > > > > And yes, the compiler knows, and provides __alignof__.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How do you deal with torn reads/writes in such a scenario? Is this UP
> > > > > > > > only?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Linux does not support (rate) SMP m68k machines.
> > > >
> > > > s/rate/rare/
> > > >
> > > > > > Ah. Ok that explains it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do we really need to maintain support for a platform that has been
> > > > > > obsolete for decade and does not even support SMP?
> > > > >
> > > > > Since this keeps coming up, I think there is a much more important
> > > > > question to ask:
> > > > >
> > > > > Do we really need to continue supporting nommu machines ? Is anyone
> > > > > but me even boot testing those ?
> > > >
> > > > Not all m68k platform are nommu.
> > > >
> > > Yes, I wasn't trying to point to m68k, but to nommu in general.
> > >
> >
> > For some more context: I think it is highly unlikely that anyone is really
> > using a recent version of Linux on a nommu machine. Maybe that was the case
> > 10 or 20 years ago, but nowadays there are other operating systems which are
> > much better suited than Linux for such systems. Yet, there is a _lot_ of
> > nommu code in the kernel. In comparison, supporting m68k (mmu based) is a no
> > brainer, plus there are actually people like Geert actively supporting it.
> >
> > If we are talking about dropping m68k support, we should really talk about
> > dropping nommu support first to get some _real_ benefit.
> >
> > Guenter
> >
> >
>
> I couldn't agree more re: nommu, it is the real source of maintenance
> issues at least for us in mm, and one I've personally run into many times.
>
> An aside, but note that there is a proposal to add nommu support to UML,
> which would entirely prevent our ability to eliminate it [0] (though it
> would make testing it easier! :)
>
> [0]:https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1731290567.git.thehajime@gmail.com/

To update, some interesting discussion in this thread suggests that indeed,
there is an ongoing need for nommu regardless [1].

In which case this nommu uml series is rather helpful for testing :)

[1]:https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/09060fcf-47e4-424f-9ab7-ee2f7919dbf5@lucifer.local/T/#m0cb0ace28f3905182369790ddc1b494d408587b9