Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 6 Sep 2022 10:30:47 -0500
From:   Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To:     Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Cc:     Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@gmail.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>, kuba@kernel.org,
        miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com, ojeda@kernel.org,
        davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com,
        asml.silence@gmail.com, imagedong@tencent.com,
        luiz.von.dentz@intel.com, vasily.averin@linux.dev,
        jk@codeconstruct.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
        linux-toolchains <linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4] net: skb: prevent the split of kfree_skb_reason() by gcc
Message-ID: <20220906153046.GD25951@gate.crashing.org>
References: <20220816032846.2579217-1-imagedong@tencent.com> <CAKwvOd=accNK7t_SOmybo3e4UcBKoZ6TBPjCHT3eSSpSUouzEA@mail.gmail.com> <CADxym3Yxq0k_W43kVjrofjNoUUag3qwmpRGLLAQL1Emot3irPQ@mail.gmail.com> <20220818165838.GM25951@gate.crashing.org> <CADxym3YEfSASDg9ppRKtZ16NLh_NhH253frd5LXZLGTObsVQ9g@mail.gmail.com> <20220819152157.GO25951@gate.crashing.org> <CADxym3Y-=6pRP=CunxRomfwXf58k0LyLm510WGtzsBnzjqdD4g@mail.gmail.com> <871qt86711.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <CADxym3Z7WpPbX7VSZqVd+nVnbaO6HvxV7ak58TXBCqBqodU+Jg@mail.gmail.com> <87edwo65lw.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87edwo65lw.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 02:37:47PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 4:01 PM Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
> > I did some research on the 'sibcalls' you mentioned above. Feel like
> > It's a little similar to 'inline', and makes the callee use the same stack
> > frame with the caller, which obviously will influence the result of
> > '__builtin_return_address'.

Sibling calls are essentially calls that can be replaced by jumps (aka
"tail call"), without needing a separate entry point to the callee.

Different targets can have a slightly different implementation and
definition of what exactly is a sibling call, but that's the gist.

> > Hmm......but I'm not able to find any attribute to disable this optimization.
> > Do you have any ideas?
> 
> Unless something changed quite recently, GCC does not allow disabling
> the optimization with a simple attribute (which would have to apply to
> function pointers as well, not functions).

It isn't specified what a sibling call exactly *is*, certainly not on C
level (only in the generated machine code), and the details differs per
target.

> asm ("") barriers that move
> out a call out of the tail position are supposed to prevent the
> optimization.

Not just "supposed": they work 100%.  The asm has to stay after the
function call by the fundamental rules of C (the function call having a
sequence point, and the asm a side effect).


void g(void);
void f(void)
{
	g();		// This can not be optimised to a jump...
	asm("");	// ... because it has to stay before this.
}


Segher