Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] padata: Mark padata_work_init() as __ref

[Daniel Jordan]

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 10:05:02AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 10:07:24PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > I am not sure if the compiler should do this level of optimization
> > because kernel/padata.c does not seem to be a special case.
> > Perhaps, we might be hit with more cases that need __ref annotation,
> > which is only required by LTO.
> 
> That's possible. I did only see this once instance in all my builds but
> allmodconfig + ThinLTO might not be too interesting of a case,
> since the sanitizers will be enabled, which makes optimization more
> difficult. I could try to enable ThinLTO with some distribution
> configurations to see if there are any more instances that crop up.

Yes, if there were many more instances of this problem it might be worth
thinking about an LTO-specific solution to fix it closer to the source.

> > One note is that, we could discard padata_work_init()
> > because (1) and (3) are both annotated as __init.
> > So, another way of fixing is
> >    static __always_inline void padata_work_init(...)
> > because the compiler would determine padata_work_init()
> > would be small enough if the caller and callee belonged to
> > the same section.
> > 
> > I do not have a strong opinion.

I'm right there with you.  :-)

> > Honestly, I do not know what the best approach would be to fix this.

Either approach works, either can include an explanatory comment.
__ref seems more targeted to the problem at hand.

> > If we go with the __ref annotation, I can pick this, but
> > at least can you add some comments?
> > 
> > 
> > include/linux/init.h says:
> > "optimally document why the __ref is needed and why it's OK"
> > 
> > 
> > I think this is the case that needs some comments
> > because LTO optimization looks too tricky to me.
> 
> Sure thing, I will send a v3 either Tuesday or Wednesday with an updated
> commit message and code comment if we end up going this route.

A nitpick, but as long as you're respinning, if we stay with this
approach, could you put __ref just before the function name?  init.h
says "The markers follow same syntax rules as __init / __initdata" and
for those it says "You should add __init immediately before the function
name" though there are plenty of places in the tree that don't do this.