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: <20201106051436.2384842-1-adrian.ratiu@collabora.com>
 <20201106051436.2384842-3-adrian.ratiu@collabora.com> <20201106101419.GB3811063@ubuntu-m3-large-x86>
 <87wnyyvh56.fsf@collabora.com> <CAKwvOdkodob0M0r_AK_4nG3atLGMyNENMd6qVAHSPa92Zh7UZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <871rh2i9xg.fsf@iwork.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
 <CAKwvOdkm3u83TQDBB-fC0TwKZCFXGh5sAfahKXxA+mnzgDid_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <87sg9ghil5.fsf@collabora.com> <CAKwvOd=QrU6rCQ4_Ji=XsskPovOSXpk0NkjTqVjLijw1-CZ17Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <87lff8gesg.fsf@collabora.com> <20201112215033.GA438824@rani.riverdale.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20201112215033.GA438824@rani.riverdale.lan>
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Nov 2020 13:55:36 -0800
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdmCgWFgHof8fqep1hymeNc368Fn8rLDwzzCU58tV5wyXg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm: lib: xor-neon: disable clang vectorization
To:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
Cc:     Adrian Ratiu <adrian.ratiu@collabora.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Collabora Kernel ML <kernel@collabora.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 1:50 PM Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 04:15:59PM +0200, Adrian Ratiu wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Nov 2020, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, though additionally Arvind points out that this code is
> > > kind of curious if there was overlap; maybe the parameters
> > > should just be restrict-qualified.
> > >
> >
> > For now I think I'll just re-send the GCC changes and leave the
> > Clang optimization as is, until we better understand what's
> > happening and what's the best way to enable it.
> >
>
> Note that the __restrict__ keywords also help GCC -- it saves it from
> having to emit the non-vectorized version and switch between the two at
> runtime. If we can verify it's safe, it's a good thing to add all
> around.

100% agree.  Even a BUILD_BUG_ON or WARN_ON in callers to validate
such an invariant might be nice.
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers