linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pintu Agarwal <pintu.ping@gmail.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Cc: Pintu Kumar <quic_pintu@quicinc.com>,
	 "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	 "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	 "ebiederm@xmission.com" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	 "christian.brauner@ubuntu.com" <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
	 "sfr@canb.auug.org.au" <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	"legion@kernel.org" <legion@kernel.org>,
	 "sashal@kernel.org" <sashal@kernel.org>,
	"gorcunov@gmail.com" <gorcunov@gmail.com>,
	 "chris.hyser@oracle.com" <chris.hyser@oracle.com>,
	"ccross@google.com" <ccross@google.com>,
	 "pcc@google.com" <pcc@google.com>,
	"dave@stgolabs.net" <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	 "caoxiaofeng@yulong.com" <caoxiaofeng@yulong.com>,
	"david@redhat.com" <david@redhat.com>,
	 "vbabka@suse.cz" <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	"linux-api@vger.kernel.org" <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
	 "dhowells@redhat.com" <dhowells@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sysinfo: include availram field in sysinfo struct
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 20:25:07 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOuPNLiKU6EkacELA-ioewBADGLV3g-m=5Cd5vE8RsSNyOkVzA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5aa1e8c55cf84436b35ee5557a508e8d@AcuMS.aculab.com>

On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 at 04:05, David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com> wrote:
>
> From: Pintu Agarwal
> > Sent: 08 January 2022 16:53
> >
> > On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 at 03:52, David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Pintu Kumar
> > > > Sent: 07 January 2022 18:08
> > > >
> > > > The sysinfo member does not have any "available ram" field and
> > > > the bufferram field is not much helpful either, to get a rough
> > > > estimate of available ram needed for allocation.
> > > >
> > > > One needs to parse MemAvailable field separately from /proc/meminfo
> > > > to get this info instead of directly getting if from sysinfo itself.
> > > >
> > > > Thus, this patch introduce a new field as availram in sysinfo
> > > > so that all the info total/free/available can be retrieved from
> > > > one place itself.
> > > >
> > > ...
> > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/sysinfo.h b/include/uapi/linux/sysinfo.h
> > > > index 435d5c2..fe84c6a 100644
> > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/sysinfo.h
> > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/sysinfo.h
> > > > @@ -19,7 +19,8 @@ struct sysinfo {
> > > >       __kernel_ulong_t totalhigh;     /* Total high memory size */
> > > >       __kernel_ulong_t freehigh;      /* Available high memory size */
> > > >       __u32 mem_unit;                 /* Memory unit size in bytes */
> > > > -     char _f[20-2*sizeof(__kernel_ulong_t)-sizeof(__u32)];   /* Padding: libc5 uses this.. */
> > >
> > > There are 4 pad bytes here on most 64bit architectures.
> > >
> > > > +     __kernel_ulong_t availram;      /* Memory available for allocation */
> > > > +     char _f[20-3*sizeof(__kernel_ulong_t)-sizeof(__u32)];   /* Padding: libc5 uses this.. */
> > > >  };
> > >
> > > You've not compile-time tested the size of the structure.
> > >
> > With "32" instead of "20" in padding I get these size of sysinfo:
> > In x86-64 kernel, with app 64-bit: Size of sysinfo = 128
> > In x86-64 kernel, with app 32-bit:: Size of sysinfo = 76
> > In arm-64 kernel, with app 32-bit: Size of sysinfo = 76
>
> You need to compare the sizes before and after your patch
> to ensure it doesn't change on any architecture.

Without the changes:
On 32-bit, the size of structure = 64
On 64-bit, the size of structure = 112

With the addition of my new field (availram) if I try to fix the size
issue on one arch, the other arch gets disturbed.
I could fix the same size issue on 64-bit with below changes:

        __kernel_ulong_t freeswap;      /* swap space still available */
        __u16 procs;                    /* Number of current processes */
        __u16 pad;                      /* Explicit padding for m68k */
+       __u32 mem_unit;                 /* Memory unit size in bytes
*/        ============> Move the mem_unit up to adjust the padding
        __kernel_ulong_t totalhigh;     /* Total high memory size */
        __kernel_ulong_t freehigh;      /* Available high memory size */
-       __u32 mem_unit;                 /* Memory unit size in bytes */
+       __kernel_ulong_t availram;      /* Memory available for
allocation */   ========> Add the new field here
-        char _f[20-2*sizeof(__kernel_ulong_t)-sizeof(__u32)];   /*
Padding: libc5 uses this.. */
+       char _f[28-3*sizeof(__kernel_ulong_t)-sizeof(__u32)];   /*
Padding: libc5 uses this.. */   ====> Increase the size to 28 (thus _f
becomes 0 like original)
+       //char _f[4];
 };

Output with 64-bit build:
$ gcc test-sysinfo.c ; ./a.out
Total RAM: 32715804 kB
Free RAM: 1111296 kB
Size of sysinfo = 112
Size of sysinfo uptime = 8
Size of sysinfo loads = 24
Size of sysinfo totalram = 8
Size of sysinfo pad = 2
Size of sysinfo memunit = 4
Size of sysinfo _f = 0

Output with 32-bit build:
$ gcc test-sysinfo.c -m32 ; ./a.out
Total RAM: 7987 kB
Free RAM: 271 kB
Size of sysinfo = 72
Size of sysinfo uptime = 4
Size of sysinfo loads = 12
Size of sysinfo totalram = 4
Size of sysinfo pad = 2
Size of sysinfo memunit = 4
Size of sysinfo _f = 12

Are there any more suggestions/ideas to experiment with padding
changes before we give-up ?
Can we handle it using : __arch64__ check ?
Or, the only option is to add one more, say: sysinfo64 ?


> > Okay the sys robot reported some issue in 64-bit build.
> > {{{
> > >> include/uapi/linux/sysinfo.h:23:14: error: size of array '_f' is too large
> > >>    23 |         char _f[20-3*sizeof(__kernel_ulong_t)-sizeof(__u32)];   /* Padding: libc5 uses
> > this.. */
> > >>       |              ^~
> > }}}
> >
> > Also, I got the same issue while building for arm64, so I tried to
> > adjust like this:
> > char _f[32-3*sizeof(__kernel_ulong_t)-sizeof(__u32)];
> >
> > With this the build works on both 32/64 but output fails when running
> > 32-bit program on 64-bit kernel.
> > Also, the free command on 64-bit reports "stack smashing error"..
> >
> > How do we resolve this issue to make it work on both arch ?
> > Also, I don't really understand the significance of that number "20"
> > in padding ?
>
> My guess is that someone added a char _f[20] pad to allow for expansion.
> Then two __kernel_ulong_t and one __u32 field were added, so the
> size of the pad was reduced.
> When __kernel_ulong_t is 64bit then it seems to be char _f[0]
> - which might generate a compile warning since you are supposed
> to use char _f[] to indicate an extensible structure.
> There is, however, 4 bytes of pad after the _f[] on most 64bit
> architectures.
>
Thanks, yes even I guessed the same.

> So actually there isn't enough space to anything useful at all.
>
Is this problem does not exist in other UAPI structures ?
Seems like nothing can be done to allow future expansion without
breaking existing things and without developing the new one.

Thanks,
Pintu


      reply	other threads:[~2022-01-10 14:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-01-06 15:34 [PATCH] " Pintu Kumar
2022-01-06 16:11 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2022-01-06 16:49   ` Pintu Agarwal
2022-01-06 17:27     ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2022-01-07 12:04       ` Christian Brauner
2022-01-07 13:44         ` Pintu Agarwal
2022-01-07 16:58           ` Vlastimil Babka
2022-01-07 17:47             ` Pintu Agarwal
2022-01-07 22:18             ` David Laight
2022-01-07 19:51         ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2022-01-06 17:41     ` David Laight
2022-01-06 17:59       ` Pintu Agarwal
2022-01-06 19:20         ` Eric W. Biederman
2022-01-07 18:07 ` [PATCH v2] " Pintu Kumar
2022-01-07 21:01   ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2022-01-08 16:24     ` Pintu Agarwal
2022-01-10  8:11       ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2022-01-07 22:22   ` David Laight
2022-01-08 16:53     ` Pintu Agarwal
2022-01-08 22:35       ` David Laight
2022-01-10 14:55         ` Pintu Agarwal [this message]

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

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

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAOuPNLiKU6EkacELA-ioewBADGLV3g-m=5Cd5vE8RsSNyOkVzA@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=pintu.ping@gmail.com \
    --cc=David.Laight@aculab.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=caoxiaofeng@yulong.com \
    --cc=ccross@google.com \
    --cc=chris.hyser@oracle.com \
    --cc=christian.brauner@ubuntu.com \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=gorcunov@gmail.com \
    --cc=legion@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=pcc@google.com \
    --cc=quic_pintu@quicinc.com \
    --cc=sashal@kernel.org \
    --cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    /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.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox