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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] modpost: add allow list for llvm IPSCCP
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        llvm@lists.linux.dev
References: <20210929225850.3889950-1-ndesaulniers@google.com>
 <CAHk-=wh0BNEDz+uOdJWG8iW=n0PeOEjZpHyuSN2g0pKSCj+6iQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKwvOdn-Z1q99zZW4GQ2aNnVMQ_JYuczrResTG7tvcfv0WLJ-w@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Message-ID: <77204240-ef3a-d72c-dfe1-d8a47de5329b@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date:   Thu, 30 Sep 2021 10:13:42 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKwvOdn-Z1q99zZW4GQ2aNnVMQ_JYuczrResTG7tvcfv0WLJ-w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 30/09/2021 02.18, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 4:28 PM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>

> Though for the defconfig case...somehow the cost is more than with the
> sanitizers...
> 
> arch/x86/mm/amdtopology.c:157:7: remark: '__nodes_weight' not inlined
> into 'amd_numa_init' because too costly to inline (cost=930,
> threshold=45) [-Rpass-missed=inline]
>         if (!nodes_weight(numa_nodes_parsed))
>              ^
> 
> Looking at the output of `make LLVM=1 -j72
> arch/x86/mm/amdtopology.ll`, @__nodes_weight is just some inline asm
> (.altinstructions). I wonder if I need to teach the cost model about
> `asm inline`...

Remind me, does clang understand 'asm inline("foo")'? Regardless, it
seems that the

  asm (ALTERNATIVE("call __sw_hweight32", ...
  asm (ALTERNATIVE("call __sw_hweight64", ...

in arch/x86/include/asm/arch_hweight.h could/should be made asm_inline
at least for gcc's sake.

Somewhat related: I really think we should remove __cold from the
definition of __init: It hurts boot time (on a simple board with quite
reproducible boot timing I measured 1-3% some time ago), and it is
likely at least partially responsible for the never-ending tsunami of
functions-that-obviously-should-have-been-inlined(TM) but were not
because the caller is being optimized for size. Whatever small cost in
extra .text is reclaimed after init - and those who are concerned about
the size of the kernel image itself probably build with
CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=y, and I see no change in such an image whether
__init includes __cold or not.

Rasmus