From: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 -tip] x86/percpu: Use C for arch_raw_cpu_ptr()
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 19:21:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFULd4b91Tr9Q2p4a20eusC+QO6O81gxY+nP-zpFiFKGTmLpYg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wijmmRB7-ZeT-sdxCSUoB83Lb5dnN7a7mCcH3cRw_aghQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 7:00 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 at 00:04, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Let me explain how the compiler handles volatile.
>
> We're talking past each other.
>
> You are talking about the volatile *memory* ops, and the the
> difference that "raw" vs "this" would cause with and without the
> "volatile".
>
> While *I* am now convinced that the memory ops aren't even an option,
> because they will generate worse code, because pretty much all users
> use the "this" version (which would have to use volatile),
Please see [1]. Even with volatile access, with memory ops the
compiler can propagate operands, resulting in ~8k code size reduction,
and many hundreds (if not thousands) MOVs propagated into subsequent
instructions. Please note many code examples in [1]. This is not
possible with the asm variant.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231004192404.31733-1-ubizjak@gmail.com/
> Because if we just stick with inline asms, the need for "volatile"
> simply goes away.
No, the compiler is then free to remove or duplicate the asm (plus
other unwanted optimizations), please see the end of chapter 6.47.2.1
in [2].
[2] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-13.2.0/gcc/Extended-Asm.html#Volatile-1
> The existing volatile on those percpu inline asms is *wrong*. It's a
> historical mistake.
Please see above.
> And with just a plain non-volatile inline asm, the inline asm wins.
Please see [1] for the code propagation argument.
> It doesn't have the (bad) read-once behavior of a volatile memory op.
>
> And it also doesn't have the (horrible correctness issue)
> rematerialization behavior of a non-volatile memory op.
Unfortunately, it does. Without volatile, asm can be rematerialized in
the same way as it can be CSEd. OTOH, the memory op with memory-ops
approach is casted to volatile in this_* case, so it for sure won't
get rematerialized.
> A compiler that were to rematerializes an inline asm (instead of
> spilling) would be a bad joke. That's not an optimization, that's just
> a crazy bad compiler with a code generation bug.
But that is what the compiler does without volatile.
Thanks,
Uros.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-19 17:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 106+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-10 16:42 [PATCH v2 -tip] x86/percpu: Use C for arch_raw_cpu_ptr() Uros Bizjak
2023-10-10 17:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-10 18:22 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-10 18:25 ` Nadav Amit
2023-10-10 18:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-10 18:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-10 18:41 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-10 18:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-11 7:27 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-11 7:45 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-11 19:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-11 18:42 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-11 19:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-11 19:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-11 20:00 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-11 22:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2023-10-11 23:15 ` H. Peter Anvin
2023-10-12 1:35 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2023-10-12 6:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2023-10-12 16:08 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2023-10-12 17:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2023-10-12 21:30 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2023-10-13 10:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2023-10-11 7:41 ` Nadav Amit
2023-10-11 19:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-11 21:32 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-11 21:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-12 15:19 ` Nadav Amit
2023-10-12 16:33 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-12 16:55 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-12 17:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-12 17:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-12 18:01 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-13 9:38 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-13 11:53 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-13 16:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-12 17:52 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-11-20 9:39 ` Use %a asm operand modifier to obtain %rip-relative addressing Uros Bizjak
2023-10-12 16:56 ` [PATCH v2 -tip] x86/percpu: Use C for arch_raw_cpu_ptr() Linus Torvalds
2023-10-12 17:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-12 19:32 ` Nadav Amit
2023-10-12 19:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-16 18:52 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-16 19:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-16 20:35 ` Nadav Amit
2023-10-16 20:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-16 23:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-16 23:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-17 7:23 ` Nadav Amit
2023-10-17 19:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-17 19:11 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-17 21:05 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-17 21:53 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-17 22:06 ` Nadav Amit
2023-10-17 22:29 ` Nadav Amit
2023-10-18 7:46 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-18 9:04 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-18 10:54 ` Nadav Amit
2023-10-18 12:14 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-18 13:15 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-18 14:46 ` Nadav Amit
2023-10-18 15:17 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-18 16:03 ` Nadav Amit
2023-10-18 16:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-18 17:23 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-18 18:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-18 18:08 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-18 18:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-18 18:26 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-18 19:33 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-18 20:17 ` Nadav Amit
2023-10-18 20:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-18 20:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-18 20:51 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-18 21:09 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-18 21:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-18 21:40 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-18 22:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-18 23:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-19 7:04 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-19 16:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-19 17:21 ` Uros Bizjak [this message]
2023-10-19 18:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-19 18:16 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-19 18:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-19 19:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-20 7:57 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-19 21:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-19 22:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-20 8:08 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-19 8:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-10-19 8:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-10-19 17:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-19 18:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-10-19 18:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-19 18:37 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-19 9:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-10-19 9:23 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-18 20:42 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-19 16:32 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-19 17:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-18 18:29 ` Nadav Amit
2023-10-18 16:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-18 17:07 ` Uros Bizjak
2023-10-18 18:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2023-10-16 21:09 ` Uros Bizjak
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=CAFULd4b91Tr9Q2p4a20eusC+QO6O81gxY+nP-zpFiFKGTmLpYg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=ubizjak@gmail.com \
--cc=brgerst@gmail.com \
--cc=dvlasenk@redhat.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=namit@vmware.com \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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).