Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20180404093007.GI4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180404191724.GF87376@google.com> <CAK8P3a1VFWYBymd3AeG1DwW++tCGsP9+vw6t8XSGHby2jmQPqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180404205848.GG87376@google.com> <CAK8P3a2tf3v6seq=OeyBakZ1ZXYzzL=tY=aHvKYv-GtD7sWeTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180404214639.GH87376@google.com> <CA+55aFwp8vRmf5p09nbunp6DfO+YvvWLj=FsU8KSW0ZwF6u80w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180404221744.GI87376@google.com> <CA+55aFz+RcyPOTs3WM-FcwoQtgaotcBVqswma7qZ-3O2Fv__9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180404233111.GJ87376@google.com> <20180405072017.GN4043@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20180405072017.GN4043@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   James Y Knight <jyknight@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 05 Apr 2018 17:47:42 +0000
Message-ID: <CAA2zVHocx8PNKk=Uxuh=nv6hO-w+u2hkWhsTPeWxLB_sNQ+bRg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/build changes for v4.17
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     mka@chromium.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        arnd@arndb.de, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        tglx@linutronix.de, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@google.com>,
        Stephen Hines <srhines@google.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@google.com>, groeck@chromium.org,
        Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@google.com>,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

I think maybe you're confused; those functions do not appear to use
__builtin_constant_p, which is the issue at hand. Clang's optimizer is of
course not a complete joke...it can perfectly well optimize functions after
inlining in order to not generate "shit code gen".

GCC, however, mixes up the concept of a C "constant expression" with the
results of running optimization passes such as inlining for its
definition/implementation of __builtin_constant_p. Clang does not, and
quite likely will not ever, do that.

That said, I do believe there are ongoing discussions as to how to best
provide a useful alternative which is less semantically strange, and not
too difficult for to conditionally adopt for a gcc/clang-compatible
codebase such as the kernel.

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:20 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 04:31:11PM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:

> > From some experiments it looks like clang, in difference to gcc, does
> > not treat constant values passed as parameters to inline function as
> > constants.

> Then you're also missing a heap of optimizations in code like
> rb_erase_augmented() which is specifically constructed to take advantage
> of constant propagation like that.

> Other sites where we expect that to happen is __mutex_lock_common(),
> __update_load_sum() and a bunch of others. There isn't strictly a bug
> here, but not doing that constant propagation will still result in shit
> code gen.