Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 6 May 2020 15:51:28 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Cc:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>, bristot@redhat.com,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 14/18] static_call: Add static_cond_call()
Message-ID: <20200506135128.GR3762@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200501202849.647891881@infradead.org>
 <20200501202944.593400184@infradead.org>
 <1238787e-d97d-f09b-d76d-2df2dc273f4b@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
 <20200503125813.GL3762@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <a53369f3-665a-af0e-efad-09ae456af847@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
 <20200504201445.GQ3762@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200505093625.GE5298@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAKwvOd=cP8UCX0+5pZ3AqzvOM8LKzLJJ_heDhrghqJdOnHoGMg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKwvOd=cP8UCX0+5pZ3AqzvOM8LKzLJJ_heDhrghqJdOnHoGMg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 11:13:53AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 2:36 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > HJ, Nick,
> >
> > Any chance any of you can see a way to make your respective compilers
> > not emit utter junk for this?
> >
> > On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 10:14:45PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > https://godbolt.org/z/SDRG2q
> 
> Woah, a godbolt link! Now we're speaking the same language.  What were
> you expecting?

Given the output for x86-64 clang (trunk)

	bar:                                    # @bar
		movl    %edi, .L_x$local(%rip)
		retq
	ponies:                                 # @ponies
		movq    .Lfoo$local(%rip), %rax
		testq   %rax, %rax
		movl    $__static_call_nop, %ecx
		cmovneq %rax, %rcx
		jmpq    *%rcx                   # TAILCALL
	__static_call_nop:                      # @__static_call_nop
		retq
	_x:
	.L_x$local:
		.long   0                       # 0x0

	foo:
	.Lfoo$local:
		.zero   8


I was hoping for:

	bar:                                    # @bar
		movl    %edi, .L_x$local(%rip)
		retq
	ponies:                                 # @ponies
		movq    .Lfoo$local(%rip), %rax
		testq   %rax, %rax
		jz	1f
		jmpq    *%rcx                   # TAILCALL
	1:
		retq

That avoids the indirect call (possible retpoline) and does an immediate
return.

So it does 2 things different:

 - it realizes the NULL case is a constant and uses an
   immediate call and avoids the indirect call/jmp.

 - it realizes __static_call_nop() is a no-op and avoids the call
   entirely and does an immediate return.

> Us to remove the conditional check that a volatile read
> wasn't NULL?

No, obviously the load is required, and the READ_ONCE() is so that the
compiler will not emit 2 different loads (just for giggles).

That is:

	tmp1 = name.func;
	if (!tmp) {
		tmp2 = name.func;
		tmp2(args);
	}

is a valid translation of:

	if (!name.func)
		name.func(args)

and allows for a NULL dereference (as noted by Rasmus).

What I did do want, per the above, is to avoid the indirect (tail) call.
Because indirect jmp/call are evil and expensive.

> I am simultaneously impressed
> and disgusted by this btw, cool stuff.

Yes, it's nasty, esp the casting of a function pointer like that is
gruesome.