diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt | 226 |
1 files changed, 226 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt b/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6223eac --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/unaligned-memory-access.txt @@ -0,0 +1,226 @@ +UNALIGNED MEMORY ACCESSES +========================= + +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 a 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 adapted +from include/linux/etherdevice.h is an optimized routine to compare two +ethernet MAC addresses for equality. + +unsigned int compare_ether_addr(const u8 *addr1, const u8 *addr2) +{ + 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; +} + +In the above function, 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 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 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. + +-- +Author: Daniel Drake <dsd@gentoo.org> +With help from: Alan Cox, Avuton Olrich, Heikki Orsila, Jan Engelhardt, +Johannes Berg, Kyle McMartin, Kyle Moffett, Randy Dunlap, Robert Hancock, +Uli Kunitz, Vadim Lobanov + |
