| Daniel Drake | d156042 | 2008-02-06 01:37:30 -0800 | [diff] [blame] | 1 | UNALIGNED MEMORY ACCESSES | 
|  | 2 | ========================= | 
|  | 3 |  | 
|  | 4 | Linux runs on a wide variety of architectures which have varying behaviour | 
|  | 5 | when it comes to memory access. This document presents some details about | 
|  | 6 | unaligned accesses, why you need to write code that doesn't cause them, | 
|  | 7 | and how to write such code! | 
|  | 8 |  | 
|  | 9 |  | 
|  | 10 | The definition of an unaligned access | 
|  | 11 | ===================================== | 
|  | 12 |  | 
|  | 13 | Unaligned memory accesses occur when you try to read N bytes of data starting | 
|  | 14 | from an address that is not evenly divisible by N (i.e. addr % N != 0). | 
|  | 15 | For example, reading 4 bytes of data from address 0x10004 is fine, but | 
|  | 16 | reading 4 bytes of data from address 0x10005 would be an unaligned memory | 
|  | 17 | access. | 
|  | 18 |  | 
|  | 19 | The above may seem a little vague, as memory access can happen in different | 
|  | 20 | ways. The context here is at the machine code level: certain instructions read | 
|  | 21 | or write a number of bytes to or from memory (e.g. movb, movw, movl in x86 | 
|  | 22 | assembly). As will become clear, it is relatively easy to spot C statements | 
|  | 23 | which will compile to multiple-byte memory access instructions, namely when | 
|  | 24 | dealing with types such as u16, u32 and u64. | 
|  | 25 |  | 
|  | 26 |  | 
|  | 27 | Natural alignment | 
|  | 28 | ================= | 
|  | 29 |  | 
|  | 30 | The rule mentioned above forms what we refer to as natural alignment: | 
|  | 31 | When accessing N bytes of memory, the base memory address must be evenly | 
|  | 32 | divisible by N, i.e. addr % N == 0. | 
|  | 33 |  | 
|  | 34 | When writing code, assume the target architecture has natural alignment | 
|  | 35 | requirements. | 
|  | 36 |  | 
|  | 37 | In reality, only a few architectures require natural alignment on all sizes | 
|  | 38 | of memory access. However, we must consider ALL supported architectures; | 
|  | 39 | writing code that satisfies natural alignment requirements is the easiest way | 
|  | 40 | to achieve full portability. | 
|  | 41 |  | 
|  | 42 |  | 
|  | 43 | Why unaligned access is bad | 
|  | 44 | =========================== | 
|  | 45 |  | 
|  | 46 | The effects of performing an unaligned memory access vary from architecture | 
|  | 47 | to architecture. It would be easy to write a whole document on the differences | 
|  | 48 | here; a summary of the common scenarios is presented below: | 
|  | 49 |  | 
|  | 50 | - Some architectures are able to perform unaligned memory accesses | 
|  | 51 | transparently, but there is usually a significant performance cost. | 
|  | 52 | - Some architectures raise processor exceptions when unaligned accesses | 
|  | 53 | happen. The exception handler is able to correct the unaligned access, | 
|  | 54 | at significant cost to performance. | 
|  | 55 | - Some architectures raise processor exceptions when unaligned accesses | 
|  | 56 | happen, but the exceptions do not contain enough information for the | 
|  | 57 | unaligned access to be corrected. | 
|  | 58 | - Some architectures are not capable of unaligned memory access, but will | 
|  | 59 | silently perform a different memory access to the one that was requested, | 
|  | 60 | resulting a a subtle code bug that is hard to detect! | 
|  | 61 |  | 
|  | 62 | It should be obvious from the above that if your code causes unaligned | 
|  | 63 | memory accesses to happen, your code will not work correctly on certain | 
|  | 64 | platforms and will cause performance problems on others. | 
|  | 65 |  | 
|  | 66 |  | 
|  | 67 | Code that does not cause unaligned access | 
|  | 68 | ========================================= | 
|  | 69 |  | 
|  | 70 | At first, the concepts above may seem a little hard to relate to actual | 
|  | 71 | coding practice. After all, you don't have a great deal of control over | 
|  | 72 | memory addresses of certain variables, etc. | 
|  | 73 |  | 
|  | 74 | Fortunately things are not too complex, as in most cases, the compiler | 
|  | 75 | ensures that things will work for you. For example, take the following | 
|  | 76 | structure: | 
|  | 77 |  | 
|  | 78 | struct foo { | 
|  | 79 | u16 field1; | 
|  | 80 | u32 field2; | 
|  | 81 | u8 field3; | 
|  | 82 | }; | 
|  | 83 |  | 
|  | 84 | Let us assume that an instance of the above structure resides in memory | 
|  | 85 | starting at address 0x10000. With a basic level of understanding, it would | 
|  | 86 | not be unreasonable to expect that accessing field2 would cause an unaligned | 
|  | 87 | access. You'd be expecting field2 to be located at offset 2 bytes into the | 
|  | 88 | structure, i.e. address 0x10002, but that address is not evenly divisible | 
|  | 89 | by 4 (remember, we're reading a 4 byte value here). | 
|  | 90 |  | 
|  | 91 | Fortunately, the compiler understands the alignment constraints, so in the | 
|  | 92 | above case it would insert 2 bytes of padding in between field1 and field2. | 
|  | 93 | Therefore, for standard structure types you can always rely on the compiler | 
|  | 94 | to pad structures so that accesses to fields are suitably aligned (assuming | 
|  | 95 | you do not cast the field to a type of different length). | 
|  | 96 |  | 
|  | 97 | Similarly, you can also rely on the compiler to align variables and function | 
|  | 98 | parameters to a naturally aligned scheme, based on the size of the type of | 
|  | 99 | the variable. | 
|  | 100 |  | 
|  | 101 | At this point, it should be clear that accessing a single byte (u8 or char) | 
|  | 102 | will never cause an unaligned access, because all memory addresses are evenly | 
|  | 103 | divisible by one. | 
|  | 104 |  | 
|  | 105 | On a related topic, with the above considerations in mind you may observe | 
|  | 106 | that you could reorder the fields in the structure in order to place fields | 
|  | 107 | where padding would otherwise be inserted, and hence reduce the overall | 
|  | 108 | resident memory size of structure instances. The optimal layout of the | 
|  | 109 | above example is: | 
|  | 110 |  | 
|  | 111 | struct foo { | 
|  | 112 | u32 field2; | 
|  | 113 | u16 field1; | 
|  | 114 | u8 field3; | 
|  | 115 | }; | 
|  | 116 |  | 
|  | 117 | For a natural alignment scheme, the compiler would only have to add a single | 
|  | 118 | byte of padding at the end of the structure. This padding is added in order | 
|  | 119 | to satisfy alignment constraints for arrays of these structures. | 
|  | 120 |  | 
|  | 121 | Another point worth mentioning is the use of __attribute__((packed)) on a | 
|  | 122 | structure type. This GCC-specific attribute tells the compiler never to | 
|  | 123 | insert any padding within structures, useful when you want to use a C struct | 
|  | 124 | to represent some data that comes in a fixed arrangement 'off the wire'. | 
|  | 125 |  | 
|  | 126 | You might be inclined to believe that usage of this attribute can easily | 
|  | 127 | lead to unaligned accesses when accessing fields that do not satisfy | 
|  | 128 | architectural alignment requirements. However, again, the compiler is aware | 
|  | 129 | of the alignment constraints and will generate extra instructions to perform | 
|  | 130 | the memory access in a way that does not cause unaligned access. Of course, | 
|  | 131 | the extra instructions obviously cause a loss in performance compared to the | 
|  | 132 | non-packed case, so the packed attribute should only be used when avoiding | 
|  | 133 | structure padding is of importance. | 
|  | 134 |  | 
|  | 135 |  | 
|  | 136 | Code that causes unaligned access | 
|  | 137 | ================================= | 
|  | 138 |  | 
|  | 139 | With the above in mind, let's move onto a real life example of a function | 
|  | 140 | that can cause an unaligned memory access. The following function adapted | 
|  | 141 | from include/linux/etherdevice.h is an optimized routine to compare two | 
|  | 142 | ethernet MAC addresses for equality. | 
|  | 143 |  | 
|  | 144 | unsigned int compare_ether_addr(const u8 *addr1, const u8 *addr2) | 
|  | 145 | { | 
|  | 146 | const u16 *a = (const u16 *) addr1; | 
|  | 147 | const u16 *b = (const u16 *) addr2; | 
|  | 148 | return ((a[0] ^ b[0]) | (a[1] ^ b[1]) | (a[2] ^ b[2])) != 0; | 
|  | 149 | } | 
|  | 150 |  | 
|  | 151 | In the above function, the reference to a[0] causes 2 bytes (16 bits) to | 
|  | 152 | be read from memory starting at address addr1. Think about what would happen | 
|  | 153 | if addr1 was an odd address such as 0x10003. (Hint: it'd be an unaligned | 
|  | 154 | access.) | 
|  | 155 |  | 
|  | 156 | Despite the potential unaligned access problems with the above function, it | 
|  | 157 | is included in the kernel anyway but is understood to only work on | 
|  | 158 | 16-bit-aligned addresses. It is up to the caller to ensure this alignment or | 
|  | 159 | not use this function at all. This alignment-unsafe function is still useful | 
|  | 160 | as it is a decent optimization for the cases when you can ensure alignment, | 
|  | 161 | which is true almost all of the time in ethernet networking context. | 
|  | 162 |  | 
|  | 163 |  | 
|  | 164 | Here is another example of some code that could cause unaligned accesses: | 
|  | 165 | void myfunc(u8 *data, u32 value) | 
|  | 166 | { | 
|  | 167 | [...] | 
|  | 168 | *((u32 *) data) = cpu_to_le32(value); | 
|  | 169 | [...] | 
|  | 170 | } | 
|  | 171 |  | 
|  | 172 | This code will cause unaligned accesses every time the data parameter points | 
|  | 173 | to an address that is not evenly divisible by 4. | 
|  | 174 |  | 
|  | 175 | In summary, the 2 main scenarios where you may run into unaligned access | 
|  | 176 | problems involve: | 
|  | 177 | 1. Casting variables to types of different lengths | 
|  | 178 | 2. Pointer arithmetic followed by access to at least 2 bytes of data | 
|  | 179 |  | 
|  | 180 |  | 
|  | 181 | Avoiding unaligned accesses | 
|  | 182 | =========================== | 
|  | 183 |  | 
|  | 184 | The easiest way to avoid unaligned access is to use the get_unaligned() and | 
|  | 185 | put_unaligned() macros provided by the <asm/unaligned.h> header file. | 
|  | 186 |  | 
|  | 187 | Going back to an earlier example of code that potentially causes unaligned | 
|  | 188 | access: | 
|  | 189 |  | 
|  | 190 | void myfunc(u8 *data, u32 value) | 
|  | 191 | { | 
|  | 192 | [...] | 
|  | 193 | *((u32 *) data) = cpu_to_le32(value); | 
|  | 194 | [...] | 
|  | 195 | } | 
|  | 196 |  | 
|  | 197 | To avoid the unaligned memory access, you would rewrite it as follows: | 
|  | 198 |  | 
|  | 199 | void myfunc(u8 *data, u32 value) | 
|  | 200 | { | 
|  | 201 | [...] | 
|  | 202 | value = cpu_to_le32(value); | 
|  | 203 | put_unaligned(value, (u32 *) data); | 
|  | 204 | [...] | 
|  | 205 | } | 
|  | 206 |  | 
|  | 207 | The get_unaligned() macro works similarly. Assuming 'data' is a pointer to | 
|  | 208 | memory and you wish to avoid unaligned access, its usage is as follows: | 
|  | 209 |  | 
|  | 210 | u32 value = get_unaligned((u32 *) data); | 
|  | 211 |  | 
|  | 212 | These macros work work for memory accesses of any length (not just 32 bits as | 
|  | 213 | in the examples above). Be aware that when compared to standard access of | 
|  | 214 | aligned memory, using these macros to access unaligned memory can be costly in | 
|  | 215 | terms of performance. | 
|  | 216 |  | 
|  | 217 | If use of such macros is not convenient, another option is to use memcpy(), | 
|  | 218 | where the source or destination (or both) are of type u8* or unsigned char*. | 
|  | 219 | Due to the byte-wise nature of this operation, unaligned accesses are avoided. | 
|  | 220 |  | 
|  | 221 | -- | 
|  | 222 | Author: Daniel Drake <dsd@gentoo.org> | 
|  | 223 | With help from: Alan Cox, Avuton Olrich, Heikki Orsila, Jan Engelhardt, | 
|  | 224 | Johannes Berg, Kyle McMartin, Kyle Moffett, Randy Dunlap, Robert Hancock, | 
|  | 225 | Uli Kunitz, Vadim Lobanov | 
|  | 226 |  |