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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: optimise WARN_ON()
To:     Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
References: <20190817090442.C5FEF106613@localhost.localdomain>
 <20190818120135.GV31406@gate.crashing.org>
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
Message-ID: <f1c0d9d9-d978-794f-82ce-494d2e52d743@c-s.fr>
Date:   Mon, 19 Aug 2019 07:40:42 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190818120135.GV31406@gate.crashing.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


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 ?

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.

> 
> (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.

Christophe