Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:2 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:2;
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>
 <CAHk-=wgCPbkf0Kdi=4T3LAVvNEH0jxJBWcTiBkrFDBsxkC9mKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFULd4aTY002A7NHRCX21aTpYOE=tnpouBk6hkoeWND=LnT4ww@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wia9vFmyCJPkYg0vvegF8eojLy+DxVtpfoDv-UHoWKfqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFULd4Zj5hTvATZUVYhUGrxH3fiAUWjO9C27UV_USf2H164thQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=whEc2HR3En32uyAufPM3tEh8J4+dot6JyGW=Eg5SEhx7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFULd4avm_TaEoRauohRc90SUrx-D+wBJvg+htQDQ1_N=zNemw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHk-=wijmmRB7-ZeT-sdxCSUoB83Lb5dnN7a7mCcH3cRw_aghQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wijmmRB7-ZeT-sdxCSUoB83Lb5dnN7a7mCcH3cRw_aghQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Oct 2023 19:21:22 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFULd4b91Tr9Q2p4a20eusC+QO6O81gxY+nP-zpFiFKGTmLpYg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 -tip] x86/percpu: Use C for arch_raw_cpu_ptr()
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     peterz@infradead.org, 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>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 7:00=E2=80=AFPM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 at 00:04, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Let me explain how the compiler handles volatile.
>
> We're talking past each other.
>
> You are talking about the volatile *memory* ops, and the the
> difference that "raw" vs "this" would cause with and without the
> "volatile".
>
> While *I* am now convinced that the memory ops aren't even an option,
> because they will generate worse code, because pretty much all users
> use the "this" version (which would have to use volatile),

Please see [1]. Even with volatile access, with memory ops the
compiler can propagate operands, resulting in ~8k code size reduction,
and many hundreds (if not thousands) MOVs propagated into subsequent
instructions. Please note many code examples in [1]. This is not
possible with the asm variant.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231004192404.31733-1-ubizjak@gmail.com/

> Because if we just stick with inline asms, the need for "volatile"
> simply goes away.

No, the compiler is then free to remove or duplicate the asm (plus
other unwanted optimizations), please see the end of chapter 6.47.2.1
in [2].

[2] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-13.2.0/gcc/Extended-Asm.html#Volatil=
e-1

> The existing volatile on those percpu inline asms is *wrong*. It's a
> historical mistake.

Please see above.

> And with just a plain non-volatile inline asm, the inline asm wins.

Please see [1] for the code propagation argument.

> It doesn't have the (bad) read-once behavior of a volatile memory op.
>
> And it also doesn't have the (horrible correctness issue)
> rematerialization behavior of a non-volatile memory op.

Unfortunately, it does. Without volatile, asm can be rematerialized in
the same way as it can be CSEd. OTOH, the memory op with memory-ops
approach is casted to volatile in this_* case, so it for sure won't
get rematerialized.

> A compiler that were to rematerializes an inline asm (instead of
> spilling) would be a bad joke. That's not an optimization, that's just
> a crazy bad compiler with a code generation bug.

But that is what the compiler does without volatile.

Thanks,
Uros.