From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@arm.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: fix unreachable code issue with cmpxchg
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 14:24:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190910132415.4j2ygxhuanihvzhx@willie-the-truck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a0O8bVLgMzyc9bXb8joy6CZevP4CVn5eEwEPVqAOutDEw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 10:04:24AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 9:46 AM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 10:21:35PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On arm64 build with clang, sometimes the __cmpxchg_mb is not inlined
> > > when CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING is set.
> >
> > Hmm. Given that CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING has also been shown to break
> > assignment of local 'register' variables on GCC, perhaps we should just
> > disable that option for arm64 (at least) since we don't have any toolchains
> > that seem to like it very much! I'd certainly prefer that over playing
> > whack-a-mole with __always_inline.
>
> Right, but I can also see good reasons to keep going:
>
> - In theory, CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING is the right thing to do -- the compilers
> also make some particularly bad decisions around inlining when each inline
> turns into an __always_inline, as has been the case in Linux for a long time.
> I think in most cases, we get better object code with CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING
> and in the cases where this is worse, it may be better to fix the compiler.
> The new "asm_inline" macro should also help with that.
Sure, in theory, but it looks like there isn't a single arm64 compiler out
there which gets it right.
> - The x86 folks have apparently whacked most of the moles already, see this
> commit from 2008
>
> commit 3f9b5cc018566ad9562df0648395649aebdbc5e0
> Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> Date: Fri Jul 18 16:30:05 2008 +0200
>
> x86: re-enable OPTIMIZE_INLINING
>
> re-enable OPTIMIZE_INLINING more widely. Jeff Dike fixed the remaining
> outstanding issue in this commit:
>
> | commit 4f81c5350b44bcc501ab6f8a089b16d064b4d2f6
> | Author: Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>
> | Date: Mon Jul 7 13:36:56 2008 -0400
> |
> | [UML] fix gcc ICEs and unresolved externs
> [...]
> | This patch reintroduces unit-at-a-time for gcc >= 4.0,
> bringing back the
> | possibility of Uli's crash. If that happens, we'll debug it.
>
> it's still default-off and thus opt-in.
This appears to be fixing an ICE, whereas the issue reported recently for
arm64 gcc was silent miscompilation of atomics in some cases. Unfortunately,
I can't seem to find the thread :/ Mark, you were on that one too, right?
> - The inlining decisions of gcc and clang are already very different, and
> the bugs we are finding around that are much more common than
> the difference between CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y/n on a
> given compiler.
Sorry, not sure that you're getting at here.
Anyway, the second version of your patch looks fine, but I would still
prefer to go the extra mile and disable CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING altogether
given that I don't think it's a safe option to enable for us.
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-10 13:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-09 20:21 [PATCH] arm64: fix unreachable code issue with cmpxchg Arnd Bergmann
2019-09-09 21:06 ` Nick Desaulniers
2019-09-09 21:35 ` Nick Desaulniers
2019-09-10 3:42 ` Nathan Chancellor
2019-09-10 7:46 ` Will Deacon
2019-09-10 8:04 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-09-10 13:24 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2019-09-10 13:43 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-09-10 14:21 ` Andrew Murray
2019-09-10 9:23 ` Andrew Murray
2019-09-10 9:38 ` Arnd Bergmann
2019-09-10 10:17 ` Masahiro Yamada
2019-09-10 10:24 ` Andrew Murray
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=20190910132415.4j2ygxhuanihvzhx@willie-the-truck \
--to=will@kernel.org \
--cc=andrew.murray@arm.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bp@suse.de \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=yamada.masahiro@socionext.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).