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;
From:   Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
To:     Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
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
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>
        <20220906153046.GD25951@gate.crashing.org>
Date:   Wed, 07 Sep 2022 20:59:26 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20220906153046.GD25951@gate.crashing.org> (Segher Boessenkool's
        message of "Tue, 6 Sep 2022 10:30:47 -0500")
Message-ID: <87zgfbnh81.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

* Segher Boessenkool:

> 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.

Sure, but GCC already disables this optimization in a generic fashion
for noreturn calls.  It should be possible to do the same based another
function attribute.

Thanks,
Florian