Re: [PATCH 3/8] lockref: use bool for false/true returns

[Mateusz Guzik]

On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 4:25 PM Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 10:46:39AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Replace int used as bool with the actual bool type for return values that
> > can only be true or false.
> >
> [snip]
>
> > -int lockref_get_not_zero(struct lockref *lockref)
> > +bool lockref_get_not_zero(struct lockref *lockref)
> >  {
> > -     int retval;
> > +     bool retval = false;
> >
> >       CMPXCHG_LOOP(
> >               new.count++;
> >               if (old.count <= 0)
> > -                     return 0;
> > +                     return false;
> >       ,
> > -             return 1;
> > +             return true;
> >       );
> >
> >       spin_lock(&lockref->lock);
> > -     retval = 0;
> >       if (lockref->count > 0) {
> >               lockref->count++;
> > -             retval = 1;
> > +             retval = true;
> >       }
> >       spin_unlock(&lockref->lock);
> >       return retval;
>
> While this looks perfectly sane, it worsens codegen around the atomic
> on x86-64 at least with gcc 13.3.0. It bisected to this commit and
> confirmed top of next-20250318 with this reverted undoes it.
>
> The expected state looks like this:
>        f0 48 0f b1 13          lock cmpxchg %rdx,(%rbx)
>        75 0e                   jne    ffffffff81b33626 <lockref_get_not_dead+0x46>
>
> However, with the above patch I see:
>        f0 48 0f b1 13          lock cmpxchg %rdx,(%rbx)
>        40 0f 94 c5             sete   %bpl
>        40 84 ed                test   %bpl,%bpl
>        74 09                   je     ffffffff81b33636 <lockref_get_not_dead+0x46>
>
> This is not the end of the world, but also really does not need to be
> there.
>
> Given that the patch is merely a cosmetic change, I would suggest I gets
> dropped.

fwiw I confirmed clang does *not* have the problem, I don't know about gcc 14.

Maybe I'll get around to testing it, but first I'm gonna need to carve
out the custom asm into a standalone testcase.

Regardless, 13 suffering the problem is imo a good enough reason to
whack the change.

-- 
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>