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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200504230309.237398-1-ndesaulniers@google.com>
 <CAKwvOdmspKUknbzDn9kY2jMgkFw=Ktvst0ZtwambDOfybqJGWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMzpN2iDottAY3p=GS0A_7XX7bpmWsmSOEcztMXNEEvcwHirjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKwvOdnxV_KwC-q73e3basJvo4-9FCGeMUOrZLj5xyt6Yyeh2A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMzpN2gTEwGh0U+L3_R6pC8Qmv1iY7bRTiTEXD86mF3u9Nnkqg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMzpN2gTEwGh0U+L3_R6pC8Qmv1iY7bRTiTEXD86mF3u9Nnkqg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 May 2020 18:54:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMzpN2jcCM4m_HnJPc6kpVhnf588w6bPxYM_bCEd3OgbnvBvTg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: support i386 with Clang
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dmitry Golovin <dima@golovin.in>,
        Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 3:34 PM Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 2:46 PM Nick Desaulniers
> <ndesaulniers@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:09 AM Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > This looks like the same issue that we just discussed for bitops.h.
> > > Add the "b" operand size modifier to force it to use the 8-bit
> > > register names (and probably also needs the "w" modifier in the 16-bit
> > > case).
> >
> > While it does feel familiar, it is slightly different.
> > https://godbolt.org/z/Rme4Zg
> > That case was both compilers validating the inline asm, yet generating
> > assembly that the assembler would choke on.  This case is validation
> > in the front end failing.
>
> > long long ret;
> > switch (sizeof(ret)) {
> > case 1:
> >         asm ("movb $5, %0" : "=q" (ret));
> >         break;
> > case 8:;
> > }
>
> So if the issue here is that the output variable type is long long,
> what code is using a 64-bit percpu variable on a 32-bit kernel?  Can
> you give a specific file that fails to build with Clang?  If Clang is
> choking on it it may be silently miscompiling on GCC.

On further investigation, 64-bit percpu operations fall back to the
generic code on x86-32, so there is no problem with miscompiling here.

On a side note from looking at the preprocessed output of the percpu
macros: they generate a ton of extra dead code because the core macros
also have a switch on data size.  I will take a stab at cleaning that
up.

--
Brian Gerst