From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8A49C47096 for ; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 03:42:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4FD2613AA for ; Sun, 6 Jun 2021 03:42:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230060AbhFFDoW (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Jun 2021 23:44:22 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-f169.google.com ([209.85.208.169]:42895 "EHLO mail-lj1-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230025AbhFFDoV (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Jun 2021 23:44:21 -0400 Received: by mail-lj1-f169.google.com with SMTP id a4so17136898ljq.9 for ; Sat, 05 Jun 2021 20:42:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux-foundation.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oYTZ0aVkCupy147WxRNKwW/8x7k8EKzPl0T5uXCBADE=; b=Zo6bRdKVAXx4rABaNQFHDKIcnmCE0mQIEHI2xzzZsiSixlnzFQRE7LEfhxGkjl6YKa tqQ2emAPcylF8ergb0DoTwbkVnUyd3IZD1Fc/0M87b1M2fNep6H/kY+77J3vUZh3Ge3U tTIZehMKt1Lln/1Lh7r9w8XgIHb5V+QKF+nkE= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oYTZ0aVkCupy147WxRNKwW/8x7k8EKzPl0T5uXCBADE=; b=I9+s9oZ/rdGxtQA7Q/jielpbzYjUNlgGJZQWFSYiUvyWOuZfV4iKtew+UbBIYgPxFg 8y8k1DU//ebOv6XQulrq0fKFtMj4Z2aMzRMpyY94XM5bxswnILWa7qzwLw04UlmRwr71 eEKQVftwykkzOtXY56/YTjOFFdSgdd09UJN8xzpuWMFynxpFfldtjA3qCjxXyxNPaGP4 Nh7nWhHVm9w63iQGiatrak3KSsa/DgKfo9V4LMse9JY8ZgoXHcbXR3ZmbagHAzMNtGKb YOIda6rU5dlWEjB4ZC/zuYuhOZq+WfNxuYKDT2+ffjIiJIl0d4YJi9NrviLTuvb45Dle R5Hg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530YVQErY2TFAIRL467xoOsaUgh/ufRx+oYV1cBPqpXBMd6V/dBk HgvwP2jbJz2mTMJ650GU1EZIwXHKi/5rMppVI3k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzTLbfcNywmOjKcnuiy1smi3BGkJ5MxfXFzp+ZmC3EULytLVi/3kxCdsAsQuuW3uEOHdedqjQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:3db:: with SMTP id f27mr9336287ljp.241.1622950878029; Sat, 05 Jun 2021 20:41:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-f41.google.com (mail-lf1-f41.google.com. [209.85.167.41]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r19sm1025859lfm.239.2021.06.05.20.41.16 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 05 Jun 2021 20:41:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-f41.google.com with SMTP id i10so20374393lfj.2 for ; Sat, 05 Jun 2021 20:41:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:374b:: with SMTP id a11mr7389694lfs.377.1622950876683; Sat, 05 Jun 2021 20:41:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210604182708.GB1688170@rowland.harvard.edu> <20210604205600.GB4397@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> <20210604214010.GD4397@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> <20210605145739.GB1712909@rowland.harvard.edu> <20210606001418.GH4397@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1> <20210606012903.GA1723421@rowland.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <20210606012903.GA1723421@rowland.harvard.edu> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2021 20:41:00 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] LKMM: Add volatile_if() To: Alan Stern , Segher Boessenkool Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" , Peter Zijlstra , Will Deacon , Andrea Parri , Boqun Feng , Nick Piggin , David Howells , Jade Alglave , Luc Maranget , Akira Yokosawa , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jun 5, 2021 at 6:29 PM Alan Stern wrote: > > Interesting. And changing one of the branches from barrier() to __asm__ > __volatile__("nop": : :"memory") also causes a branch to be emitted. So > even though the compiler doesn't "look inside" assembly code, it does > compare two pieces at least textually and apparently assumes if they are > identical then they do the same thing. That's actually a feature in some cases, ie the ability to do CSE on asm statements (ie the "always has the same output" optimization that the docs talk about). So gcc has always looked at the asm string for that reason, afaik. I think it's something of a bug when it comes to "asm volatile", but the documentation isn't exactly super-specific. There is a statement of "Under certain circumstances, GCC may duplicate (or remove duplicates of) your assembly code when optimizing" and a suggestion of using "%=" to generate a unique instance of an asm. Which might actually be a good idea for "barrier()", just in case. However, the problem with that is that I don't think we are guaranteed to have a universal comment character for asm statements. IOW, it might be a good idea to do something like #define barrier() \ __asm__ __volatile__("# barrier %=": : :"memory") but I'm not 100% convinced that '#' is always a comment in asm code, so the above might not actually build everywhere. However, *testing* the above (in my config, where '#' does work as a comment character) shows that gcc doesn't actually consider them to be distinct EVEN THEN, and will still merge two barrier statements. That's distressing. So the gcc docs are actively wrong, and %= does nothing - it will still compare as the exact same inline asm, because the string equality testing is apparently done before any expansion. Something like this *does* seem to work: #define ____barrier(id) __asm__ __volatile__("#" #id: : :"memory") #define __barrier(id) ____barrier(id) #define barrier() __barrier(__COUNTER__) which is "interesting" or "disgusting" depending on how you happen to feel. And again - the above works only as long as "#" is a valid comment character in the assembler. And I have this very dim memory of us having comments in inline asm, and it breaking certain configurations (for when the assembler that the compiler uses is a special human-unfriendly one that only accepts compiler output). You could make even more disgusting hacks, and have it generate something like .pushsection .discard.barrier .long #id .popsection instead of a comment. We already expect that to work and have generic inline asm cases that generate code like that. Linus