Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231010164234.140750-1-ubizjak@gmail.com> <CAHk-=whYWhZN52SJN-Th9x2L2V-vHtAXUgiy_nSJ3+vQU6ak4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFULd4ZqH3FeG8_mjDvUAU9QiGB36wDu3MzUtadgAgoVuQ9QRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wiALZxieQQmvv5sW15HYB_YwC3d_ma9sdp7Zb4Fb4uK2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <F48A9D34-3627-4372-B555-B58CBFC3F241@vmware.com> <CAHk-=wjF4gzCZKh-zN-sY0WpX1kCo+s9gYE9sOcSv0QieH1dwQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFULd4bmOa7G2dXd_mu4J=_bsEs+TbxH691tYx9QQBwJPAma9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wj2Co_g3RQ=JkDZC7PYbRqDPq7mePQ0=eYhhtpEgqJD0w@mail.gmail.com>
 <0617BB2F-D08F-410F-A6EE-4135BB03863C@vmware.com> <CAFULd4Zjd6idrLXuF59cwKxyd1a--DsiJwGQAKai9Tph30dAow@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wgSsfo89ESHcngvPCkQSh_YAJG-0g7fupb+Uv0E1d_EcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <7D77A452-E61E-4B8B-B49C-949E1C8E257C@vmware.com> <CAHk-=wj1dLFkL9Qv2vtk0O8Q6WE-11Jq3KucZoz2Kkw59LAexw@mail.gmail.com>
 <9F926586-20D9-4979-AB7A-71124BBAABD3@vmware.com> <CAHk-=wi7YKPKKZw5SpA9gZcf4paG4pZ2kUM50g-LQmdF0g6vWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFULd4bpHkNzCzKed23mTTBWRyhPnOm91f+F6UE413VK+oFtMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFULd4Z-q4Ot6iyOLo7DkjE=dY3RHXUV+yx6R0iWk=-tZ6ufhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wjSnECwAe+Bi0PD6uods3ZDs8up5OAy-qZKF5OgPLpDiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFULd4bLEU-tBC8dO1wf66UAxQ2d1HxQ=D6wvtHZfdQCKhnpkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFULd4YAFTFqon3ojv7N6h=G_1pAjSH3T6YvX0G=g7Fwh7j1jQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <A2E458DE-8B84-4FB2-BF6D-3EAB2B355078@vmware.com> <CAFULd4b_PdKb=8U5+Zz-XNoYdULtcQJnmf-yCrpCv7RRogSXyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFULd4Y8_MOMGcatcMuUaC89zX5F-VYr0niiJ9Yd8hQ16neHjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <3F9D776E-AD7E-4814-9E3C-508550AD9287@vmware.com> <CAFULd4Zruoq4b5imt3NfN4D+0RY2-i==KGAwUHR8JD0T8=HJBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <28B9471C-4FB0-4AB0-81DD-4885C3645E95@vmware.com> <CAHk-=whS8-Lk_=mFp=mr-JrbRYtScgz-4s_GLAOQGafa_3zP9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFULd4Yy-v40tK94rexSOL99FGMke2Jk42wgcjoEBxV=2hXoCw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wjrLoy6xEDXB=piEUagDLMmV5Up7UK75W1D0E0UFVO-iA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFULd4autFT=96EckL9vUDgO5t0ESp27+NDVXQHGi7N=PAo-HQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFULd4Zhw=zoDtir03FdPxJD15GZ5N=SV9=4Z45_Q_P9BL1rvQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHk-=wgoWOcToLYbuL2GccbNXwj_MH-LxmB_7MMjw6uu50k57Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgoWOcToLYbuL2GccbNXwj_MH-LxmB_7MMjw6uu50k57Q@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:34:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgCPbkf0Kdi=4T3LAVvNEH0jxJBWcTiBkrFDBsxkC9mKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 -tip] x86/percpu: Use C for arch_raw_cpu_ptr()
To:     Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>
Cc:     Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 at 13:22, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> And yes, sometimes we use actual volatile accesses for them
> (READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE()) but those are *horrendous* in general,
> and are much too strict. Not only does gcc generally lose its mind
> when it sees volatile (ie it stops doing various sane combinations
> that would actually be perfectly valid), but it obviously also stops
> doing CSE on the loads (as it has to).

Note, in case you wonder what I mean by "lose its mind", try this
(extremely stupid) test program:

    void a(volatile int *i) { ++*i; }
    void b(int *i) { ++*i; }

and note that the non-volatile version does

    addl $1, (%rdi)

but the volatile version then refuses to combine the read+write into a
rmw instruction, and generates

    movl (%rdi), %eax
    addl $1, %eax
    movl %eax, (%rdi)

instead.

Sure, it's correct, but it's an example of how 'volatile' ends up
disabling a lot of other optimizations than just the "don't remove the
access".

Doing the volatile as one rmw instruction would still have been very
obviously valid - it's still doing a read and a write. You don't need
two instructions for that.

I'm not complaining, and I understand *why* it happens - compiler
writers very understandably go "oh, I'm not touching that".

I'm just trying to point out that volatile really screws up code
generation even aside from the "access _exactly_ once" issue.

So using inline asm and relying on gcc doing (minimal) CSE will then
generate better code than volatile ever could, even when we just use a
simple 'mov" instruction. At least you get that basic combining
effect, even if it's not great.

And for memory ops, *not* using volatile is dangerous when they aren't stable.

              Linus