Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-17050-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2024 09:41:46 -0800
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>, Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>
CC: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>, Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
	Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>, Smita Koralahalli
	<Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@amd.com>, Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@huawei.com>,
	Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>, Alison Schofield
	<alison.schofield@intel.com>, Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
	<linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 8/9] PCI: Define scoped based management functions
Message-ID: <6596edda327c8_8dc68294b2@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch>
References: <20231220-cxl-cper-v5-0-1bb8a4ca2c7a@intel.com>
 <20231220-cxl-cper-v5-8-1bb8a4ca2c7a@intel.com>
 <20240104060528.GA10504@wunner.de>
 <6596539c9729e_8dc6829476@dwillia2-xfh.jf.intel.com.notmuch>
 <20240104070235.GA13468@wunner.de>
 <CAMj1kXG0QiizpA_oTkV4h2DaF4KuM454_KBno3UngvO7fRm-7g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXG0QiizpA_oTkV4h2DaF4KuM454_KBno3UngvO7fRm-7g@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount: 1
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0: =?us-ascii?Q?xKSoU30XBxnWmYQODcdryHs3NpjR4LKgJy3HQrqzSwYhrmQHtjqPeuSrbUI8?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?pMuf/fDqsOFLsMUesTthjyrZfZkbIpnbkARsPasmn1klIAUw5OvhjtS36H2n?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?s7nxOeD3vnRKf1tFUbpQS3Nm/wTAbqySDwJWvJns5smj7EsoNAFklUVeV88c?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?9X13d1HihCyEY8jnQTxXbRKX53Sf+gEZ/j6dg2kCpB99v6cHfT8bZKL58IT5?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?ndv8pIbad0lx02Fv/eUKfOcLACfAYAUtTtfefrlZ5//ehYcy4zxYCVamzJzC?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?FwFGv4+yRp9GVCAos3RQSwSpQ5imVAXpOOZoDWWHZv42ifMTQL27FyWuEHe2?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?StpJOvoVpbN9d6kVWyJ+zyyFuwiuwXt2VfV2MhCcy9mkVQzhCNu6xeJyr5zL?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?chP8BQLxt/XYsgpw+NzjODTujVtLtXFPm6KZdCT20kUAUCZXwSx4tJc1z+Uc?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?QGGriMp43AulrtT9IWGIa/Wr9hcqzePTYDa4wfwZMvLuGRbSGrBzn9THmCIi?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?GKMfP6h90kMazCLkvFnr1sRaqHkSHHSOB9B6Md8ViwP4Afaqoaq1BBSNmnAl?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?DoLbgJs/dv4OWweg3Pw6zJ/iw3l4aPYpuOwW8Jlm62fF3ZZv35hPRuXyACMG?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?pPdM7YfdjGi6mN0aULZ0Fp9A6h3w5mxPI4/nnT4d9c/kHxZbJzD1iABp0lzt?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?OWkrP3XaMwamrQHSLDxk/Uk5+uODVppqoB1tX6y0u8LIQ7Te1qlqzUFKIzNo?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?ciS0Bkyh3kcY+dZ7u3BKIaHKtPIOEfef7rT5RjUBAmuEzLpz/S6kSFegifH+?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Z7LfFfeDSlKjneJ1uQDv+FzG78Izq5QYUEJ+GN0aWIB/OguZyDkDxTL7tkvU?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?rDFcD4ufwpkyplKqdUfklh7sf5WhwEH34hcsMWyeAFRws01D4RS6w1seBIJn?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?rXQvBIlqQMvfBDfjq/KBu7XGbIcwav1SHp/tm3RSG1AO20ooDXZj1OKFKzWT?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?O6aIpApQ9lO+p0eUjI2BSmZbY8iIzPWBF4AJREoz+MSjMcH2Ymph2b/oG+tX?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?q0u0iSd2E5tHrfQWAh3B7XEMrgfo1TBi6TZTdkExRnCEPZpzJrmp7zlSzAFN?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?53Th8HMuL7qAF6rxaFjBueWeW/j60k7xEdELA5KtvixmKGPhz26kEjp0o6HK?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?ImCr9D8diHhQEZkcHgnpe3RxzkyInUYF9rNUKNtVrX2O/FvGsldzvT/f8V87?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?v7M9937nBuICAKG+3sfhT62Trc5fkPbb9kLg6RgjAJmV4CLKGasHP57pmPVf?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?j133lp7JsgkbcjMYm6ZZpBpfO1WGhZ6/ExHJwMvHCecCeN4lebb/uDbKasuK?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?yk3El8ubRwfjjLZgLvm3CT+c4aC5Cbbo06KKX2OPgsfrRhy1afqJnevcFWS8?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?8Dh3R4w4GbUd94PMgdVfl82TuRbFDisKTZ1RLOHKzPZSnpyV+GWWtt78bEUp?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?b2tkeL4KhdV14Z58fErSh7NkjBWCEWGqZ58XORXcXLUhrGYektOtLUgqux83?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?Z63pQn9Hab2Cwu96CYCupCZSMkBdSJZZZnfmQVXLVpBt5ZPnxDSenPieO552?=
 =?us-ascii?Q?og=3D=3D?=
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 3388bd88-567e-4676-3dde-08dc0d4c6dfb
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: PH8PR11MB8107.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jan 2024 17:41:49.5166
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 46c98d88-e344-4ed4-8496-4ed7712e255d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: p55wI54Jse3GKzqKG1A+2oc+siGDzHtji0RoBbtkOltZbonUlKOqpXxFJILoGduK6Y10+vlkTnjRaKbLqA+wBDjbNOqmkitUE8ABHDIHMxw=
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SA1PR11MB7698
X-OriginatorOrg: intel.com

Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 08:02, Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 10:43:40PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 04:17:35PM -0800, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > > > > --- a/include/linux/pci.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/linux/pci.h
> > > > > @@ -1170,6 +1170,7 @@ int pci_get_interrupt_pin(struct pci_dev *dev, struct pci_dev **bridge);
> > > > >  u8 pci_common_swizzle(struct pci_dev *dev, u8 *pinp);
> > > > >  struct pci_dev *pci_dev_get(struct pci_dev *dev);
> > > > >  void pci_dev_put(struct pci_dev *dev);
> > > > > +DEFINE_FREE(pci_dev_put, struct pci_dev *, if (_T) pci_dev_put(_T))
> > > >
> > > > pci_dev_put() already performs a NULL pointer check internally.
> > > > Why duplicate it here?
> > >
> > > Greg asked the same for the introduction of __free(kvfree), and Peter
> > > clarified:
> > >
> > > http://lore.kernel.org/r/20230814161731.GN776869@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
> > >
> > > Essentially, that check is more for build-time than runtime because when
> > > the macro is expanded the compiler can notice scenarios where @pdev is
> > > set to NULL (likely by no_free_ptr()) and skip the call to pci_dev_put()
> > > altogether. pci_dev_put() also happens to be out-of-line, so saving a
> > > call when @pdev is NULL a small win in that respect as well.
> >
> > Doubtful whether that's correct.  The kernel is compiled with
> > -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks since commit a3ca86aea507
> > ("Add '-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks' to gcc CFLAGS").
> >
> > So these NULL pointer checks are generally not optimized away.
> >
> > I've just responded to the discussion you've linked above:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240104065744.GA6055@wunner.de/
> >
> 
> AIUI, Peter is referring to constant propagation of compile time
> constant pointers here, not pointer variables where the NULL check is
> elided if the variable has already been dereferenced.
> 

No, it is for auto (on stack) pointer variables. Consider this sequence:

	struct pci_dev *pdev __free(pci_dev_put) = pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot(...);

	if (!pdev)
		return NULL;

	if (!check_pdev(pdev))
		return NULL;

	return no_free_ptr(pdev);

...that expands at compile time to a first pass of:

	struct pci_dev *pdev = pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot(...);

	if (!pdev) {
		if (pdev)
			pci_dev_put(pdev);
		return NULL;
	}

	if (!check_pdev(pdev)) {
		if (pdev)
			pci_dev_put(pdev);
		return NULL;
	}

	struct pci_dev *tmp = pdev;
	pdev = NULL;
	if (pdev)
		pci_dev_put(pdev);
	return tmp;

...the compiler can then optimize this on a second pass to:

	if (!pdev)
		return NULL;

	if (!check_pdev(pdev)) {
		pci_dev_put(pdev);
		return NULL;
	}

	return pdev;

...if the NULL check is dropped from DEFINE_FREE(pci_dev_put...) then
this becomes unoptimizable by the compiler without
link-time-optimization (LTO) to see that pci_dev_put() has an internal
NULL check:

	struct pci_dev *pdev = pci_get_domain_bus_and_slot(...);

	if (!pdev) {
		pci_dev_put(pdev);
		return NULL;
	}

	if (!check_pdev(pdev)) {
		pci_dev_put(pdev);
		return NULL;
	}

	struct pci_dev *tmp = pdev;
	pdev = NULL;
	pci_dev_put(pdev);
	return tmp;

Now, if pci_dev_put() would become a static inline the compiler could
again do the optimization, but it is otherwise free (post compiler
optimization) to keep a conditional in these DEFINE_FREE() instances and
not worry about whether the actual free routine is inline, out-of-line,
or has its own NULL check.