Re: [PATCH 7/8] percpu: add __percpu sparse annotations tohw_breakpoint

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 09:48:45AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Frederic.
> 
> On 01/26/2010 09:19 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:22:14AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >> Add __percpu sparse annotations to hw_breakpoint.
> >>
> >> These annotations are to make sparse consider percpu variables to be
> >> in a different address space and warn if accessed without going
> >> through percpu accessors.  This patch doesn't affect normal builds.
> >>
> >> per_cpu(nr_task_bp_pinned, cpu) is replaced with
> >> &per_cpu(nr_task_bp_pinned[0], cpu).  This is the same to the compiler
> >> but allows per_cpu() macro to correctly drop __percpu designation for
> >> the returned pointer.
> > 
> > Ouch... It's unpleasant to see such workaround that messes up the
> > code just to make sparse happy.
> > 
> > I guess __percpu is an address_space attribute? Is there no
> > way to force the address space change directly from the
> > per_cpu() macro?
> 
> Yeah, per_cpu() macro does that but when things get a bit complicated
> with static percpu arrays.  In the above case, the variable is defined
> as
> 
>   static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, nr_task_bp_pinned[HBP_NUM]);
> 
> which gets translated to
> 
>   static __attribute__((noderef, address_space(3))) \
> 	 __attribute__((section(.data.percpu))) \
> 	 __typeof__(unsigned int) nr_task_bp_pinned[HBP_NUM];
> 
> The above tells sparse that the members of nr_task_bp_pinned array are
> in address space 3 which is correct.  The problematic dereference was
> 
>   unsigned int *task_pinned = per_cpu(nr_task_bp_pinned, cpu)
> 
> per_cpu() macro changes the address space of the resulting address but
> it does so assuming that the parameter it got passed is the one which
> got declared to be in the percpu address space.  It casts
> nr_task_bp_pinned itself, which to the sparse isn't in the percpu
> address space, to the kernel address space.  So, the workaround is
> basically to give per_cpu() macro the same thing that was defined.
> 
> This type of usage (define as array, dereference the array as address)
> was the only place where I needed to work around to make address space
> change explicit.  There are two places which needed this and hwbreak
> was one.  The options were...
> 
> * Leave it alone.  We can live with a few additional sparse warnings.
> 
> * Make the proposed change.  It is slightly ugly but not cryptic or
>   difficult.
> 
> * Somehow teach per_cpu() macro or sparse how to handle the above
>   right.
> 
> I tried to improve per_cpu() macro but couldn't do it in any sane way.
> Leaving it alone isn't too bad either but given that the workaround is
> not horribly unreadable, I think it's best to use the slightly less
> elegant form in the few places where they are needed.



Ok.

Well, sorry I must be missing something obvious, but is it impossible
to make per_cpu(var, cpu) returning something cast in:

	(typeof(var) __force)

Or I guess you did that already and it is not working with static
arrays, or?

Is there a patch that shows per_cpu() macro changes in the batch?

Thanks.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/