Re: [PATCH] powerpc: optimise WARN_ON()
From: Segher Boessenkool
Date: Mon Aug 19 2019 - 03:58:16 EST
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 07:40:42AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> Le 18/08/2019 à 14:01, Segher Boessenkool a écrit :
> >On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 09:04:42AM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> >>Unlike BUG_ON(x), WARN_ON(x) uses !!(x) as the trigger
> >>of the t(d/w)nei instruction instead of using directly the
> >>value of x.
> >>This leads to GCC adding unnecessary pair of addic/subfe.
> >And it has to, it is passed as an "r" to an asm, GCC has to put the "!!"
> >value into a register.
> >>By using (x) instead of !!(x) like BUG_ON() does, the additional
> >>instructions go away:
> >But is it correct? What happens if you pass an int to WARN_ON, on a
> >64-bit kernel?
> On a 64-bit kernel, an int is still in a 64-bit register, so there would
> be no problem with tdnei, would it ? an int 0 is the same as an long 0,
> right ?
The top 32 bits of a 64-bit register holding an int are undefined. Take
int x = 42;
x = ~x;
which may put ffff_ffff_ffff_ffd5 into the reg, not 0000_0000_ffff_ffd5
as you might expect or want. For tw instructions this makes no difference
(they only look at the low 32 bits anyway); for td insns, it does.
> It is on 32-bit kernel that I see a problem, if one passes a long long
> to WARN_ON(), the forced cast to long will just drop the upper size of
> it. So as of today, BUG_ON() is buggy for that.
Sure, it isn't defined what types you can pass to that macro. Another
thing that makes inline functions much saner to use.
> >(You might want to have 64-bit generate either tw or td. But, with
> >your __builtin_trap patch, all that will be automatic).
> Yes I'll discard this patch and focus on the __builtin_trap() one which
> should solve most issues.
But see my comment there about the compiler knowing all code after an
unconditional trap is dead.