Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/hwmon: Fix a build error used with clang compiler
From: Andi Shyti
Date: Tue Oct 25 2022 - 20:18:28 EST
Hi Ashutosh,
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 02:25:06 -0700, Andi Shyti wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ashutosh,
>
> Hi Andi :)
>
> > > > If a non-constant variable is used as the first argument of the FIELD_PREP
> > > > macro, a build error occurs when using the clang compiler.
>
> A "non-constant variable" does not seem to be the cause of the compile
> error with clang, see below.
>
> >
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c:115:16: error: result of comparison of constant 18446744073709551615 with expression of type 'typeof (_Generic((field_msk), char: (unsigned char)0, unsigned char: (unsigned char)0, signed char: (unsigned char)0, unsigned short: (unsigned short)0, short: (unsigned short)0, unsigned int: (unsigned int)0, int: (unsigned int)0, unsigned long: (unsigned long)0, long: (unsigned long)0, unsigned long long: (unsigned long long)0, long long: (unsigned long long)0, default: (field_msk)))' (aka 'unsigned int') is always false [-Werror,-Wtautological-constant-out-of-range-compare]
> > >
> > > What is 18446744073709551615? You may want to limit the length of this line
> > > or checkpatch doesn't complain?
> >
> > yeah! I am not a clang user, and this must be some ugly error
> > output. I don't think it makes sense to break it, though.
>
> 18446744073709551615 == ~0ull (see use in __BF_FIELD_CHECK).
I just wonder, then, where this number comes from, looks to me
like an ill formatted constant coming from the compiler
(definitely bigger than a ull).
> >
> > > > bits_to_set = FIELD_PREP(field_msk, nval);
> > > > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > ./include/linux/bitfield.h:114:3: note: expanded from macro 'FIELD_PREP'
> > > > __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0ULL, _val, "FIELD_PREP: "); \
> > > > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > ./include/linux/bitfield.h:71:53: note: expanded from macro '__BF_FIELD_CHECK'
> > > > BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__bf_cast_unsigned(_mask, _mask) > \
>
> So clang seems to break here at this line in __BF_FIELD_CHECK (note ~0ull
> also occurs here):
>
> BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__bf_cast_unsigned(_mask, _mask) > \
> __bf_cast_unsigned(_reg, ~0ull), \
> _pfx "type of reg too small for mask"); \
>
> So it goes through previous checks including the "mask is not constant"
> check. As Nick Desaulniers mentions "__builtin_constant_p is evaluated
> after most optimizations have run" so by that time both compilers (gcc and
> clang) have figured out that even though _mask is coming in as function
> argument it is really the constant below:
>
> #define PKG_PWR_LIM_1 REG_GENMASK(14, 0)
I also thought that the compiler should have figured it out, but
then why we got that error, and I don't see how
"bf_cast_unsigned(_reg, ~0ull)" could fail.
> But it is not clear why clang chokes on this "type of reg too small for
> mask" check (and gcc doesn't) since everything is u32.
>
> It is for this reason I want someone from llvm to chime in.
>
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~
> > > > ./include/linux/build_bug.h:39:58: note: expanded from macro 'BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG'
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > ./include/linux/compiler_types.h:357:22: note: expanded from macro 'compiletime_assert'
> > > > _compiletime_assert(condition, msg, __compiletime_assert_, __COUNTER__)
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > ./include/linux/compiler_types.h:345:23: note: expanded from macro '_compiletime_assert'
> > > > __compiletime_assert(condition, msg, prefix, suffix)
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > ./include/linux/compiler_types.h:337:9: note: expanded from macro '__compiletime_assert'
> > > > if (!(condition)) \
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 99f55efb7911 ("drm/i915/hwmon: Power PL1 limit and TDP setting")
> > > > Cc: Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: Anshuman Gupta <anshuman.gupta@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Gwan-gyeong Mun <gwan-gyeong.mun@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c | 12 +++---------
> > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
> > > > index 9e9781493025..782a621b1928 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
> > > > @@ -101,21 +101,16 @@ hwm_field_read_and_scale(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, i915_reg_t rgadr,
> > > >
> > > > static void
> > > > hwm_field_scale_and_write(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, i915_reg_t rgadr,
> > > > - u32 field_msk, int nshift,
> > > > - unsigned int scale_factor, long lval)
> > > > + int nshift, unsigned int scale_factor, long lval)
> > > > {
> > > > u32 nval;
> > > > - u32 bits_to_clear;
> > > > - u32 bits_to_set;
> > > >
> > > > /* Computation in 64-bits to avoid overflow. Round to nearest. */
> > > > nval = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)lval << nshift, scale_factor);
> > > >
> > > > - bits_to_clear = field_msk;
> > > > - bits_to_set = FIELD_PREP(field_msk, nval);
> > > > -
> > > > hwm_locked_with_pm_intel_uncore_rmw(ddat, rgadr,
> > > > - bits_to_clear, bits_to_set);
> > > > + PKG_PWR_LIM_1,
> > > > + FIELD_PREP(PKG_PWR_LIM_1, nval));
> > >
> > > I don't want to give up so easily. We might have future uses for the
> > > function where we want field_msk to be passed into the function (rather
> > > than set inside the function as in this patch).
> > >
> > > Do we understand what clang is complaining about? And why this compiles
> > > with gcc?
> >
> > Because we are not compiling the builtin functions with gcc but
> > gcc has support for them. The FIELD_PREP checks if the first
> > parameter is a constant:
> >
> > BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(!__builtin_constant_p(_mask),
> >
> > where _mask was our field_mask, but we ignore it. Apparently
> > clang doesn't.
>
> So we have debunked this above.
>
> > If we want to stick to gcc only, then I still think the patch is
> > correct for two reasons:
> >
> > 1. it's cleaner
> > 2. we would get on with the job and if one day we will decide
> > to suppport builtin functions in gcc as well, we will sleep
> > peacefully :)
>
> I disagree with the patch even if we need to fix this in i915 (rather than
> say change the headers or something in clang).
>
> Note that hwm_field_scale_and_write() pairs with hwm_field_read_and_scale()
> (they are basically a set/get pair) so it is desirable they have identical
> arguments. This patch breaks that symmetry.
OK, didn't see it! Makes sense.
> If we have to fix this in i915, I prefer the following patch (so just skip
> the checks in FIELD_PREP):
>
> @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ hwm_field_scale_and_write(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, i915_reg_t rgadr,
> nval = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)lval << nshift, scale_factor);
>
> bits_to_clear = field_msk;
> - bits_to_set = FIELD_PREP(field_msk, nval);
> + bits_to_set = (nval << __bf_shf(field_msk)) & field_msk;
>
> hwm_locked_with_pm_intel_uncore_rmw(ddat, rgadr,
doesn't look pretty, though! :/
> But I'd wait to hear from clang/llvm folks first.
Yeah! Looking forward to getting some ideas :)
Thanks, Ashutosh!
Andi
> > > Copying llvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx too.
> >
> > maybe llvm folks have a better opinion.
> >
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Ashutosh
>
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > @@ -406,7 +401,6 @@ hwm_power_write(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, u32 attr, int chan, long val)
> > > > case hwmon_power_max:
> > > > hwm_field_scale_and_write(ddat,
> > > > hwmon->rg.pkg_rapl_limit,
> > > > - PKG_PWR_LIM_1,
> > > > hwmon->scl_shift_power,
> > > > SF_POWER, val);
> > > > return 0;
> > > > --
> > > > 2.37.1
> > > >