Re: [PATCH 1/5] clump_bits: Introduce the for_each_set_clump macro

From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
To: Syed Nayyar Waris <syednwaris@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@gmail.com>,
	Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Robert Richter <rrichter@marvell.com>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
	Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
	Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@verdurent.com>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] clump_bits: Introduce the for_each_set_clump macro
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2020 23:03:06 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a35N1TvRQsGt+G52XSx0N4FQe_76pU4sf4EiH3Gq=s66A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bc7bf5556fce464179550c67fbec121626d08e85.1608963095.git.syednwaris@gmail.com>

On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 7:42 AM Syed Nayyar Waris <syednwaris@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This macro iterates for each group of bits (clump) with set bits,
> within a bitmap memory region. For each iteration, "start" is set to
> the bit offset of the found clump, while the respective clump value is
> stored to the location pointed by "clump". Additionally, the
> bitmap_get_value() and bitmap_set_value() functions are introduced to
> respectively get and set a value of n-bits in a bitmap memory region.
> The n-bits can have any size from 1 to BITS_PER_LONG. size less
> than 1 or more than BITS_PER_LONG causes undefined behaviour.
> Moreover, during setting value of n-bit in bitmap, if a situation arise
> that the width of next n-bit is exceeding the word boundary, then it
> will divide itself such that some portion of it is stored in that word,
> while the remaining portion is stored in the next higher word. Similar
> situation occurs while retrieving the value from bitmap.
>
> GCC gives warning in bitmap_set_value(): https://godbolt.org/z/rjx34r
> Add explicit check to see if the value being written into the bitmap
> does not fall outside the bitmap.
> The situation that it is falling outside would never be possible in the
> code because the boundaries are required to be correct before the
> function is called. The responsibility is on the caller for ensuring the
> boundaries are correct.
> The code change is simply to silence the GCC warning messages
> because GCC is not aware that the boundaries have already been checked.
> As such, we're better off using __builtin_unreachable() here because we
> can avoid the latency of the conditional check entirely.

Didn't the __builtin_unreachable() end up leading to an objtool
warning about incorrect stack frames for the code path that leads
into the undefined behavior? I thought I saw a message from the 0day
build bot about that and didn't expect to see it again after that.

Can you actually measure any performance difference compared
to BUG_ON() that avoids the undefined behavior? Practically
all CPUs from the past 20 years have branch predictors that should
completely hide measurable overhead from this.

      Arnd