Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 13 Dec 2022 09:48:27 -0700
From:   Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
To:     Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>
Cc:     Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>, Nicolas Schier <nicolas@fjasle.eu>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>,
        Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@google.com>,
        linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        llvm@lists.linux.dev, patches@lists.linux.dev,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] padata: Mark padata_work_init() as __ref
Message-ID: <Y5is20DXQxtqyJLs@dev-arch.thelio-3990X>
References: <20221207191657.2852229-1-nathan@kernel.org>
 <20221207191657.2852229-2-nathan@kernel.org>
 <CAK7LNARoxqSzjpM0twcssMkf9X_PppzqtUo_opq=CX+zixma8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y5dfPgNF8E2EpNCM@dev-arch.thelio-3990X>
 <20221212192157.plxiyyinfhieyzbt@parnassus.localdomain>
 <Y5eJuBWoCJ+q++IM@dev-arch.thelio-3990X>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y5eJuBWoCJ+q++IM@dev-arch.thelio-3990X>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 01:06:16PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 02:21:57PM -0500, Daniel Jordan wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 10:05:02AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 10:07:24PM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > > > I am not sure if the compiler should do this level of optimization
> > > > because kernel/padata.c does not seem to be a special case.
> > > > Perhaps, we might be hit with more cases that need __ref annotation,
> > > > which is only required by LTO.
> > > 
> > > That's possible. I did only see this once instance in all my builds but
> > > allmodconfig + ThinLTO might not be too interesting of a case,
> > > since the sanitizers will be enabled, which makes optimization more
> > > difficult. I could try to enable ThinLTO with some distribution
> > > configurations to see if there are any more instances that crop up.
> > 
> > Yes, if there were many more instances of this problem it might be worth
> > thinking about an LTO-specific solution to fix it closer to the source.
> 
> Ack, I will wire up some build tests to see if this optimization occurs
> frequently enough to warrant a wider fix.

Turns out this does not appear to happen often. I built several
distribution configurations for arm64 and x86_64 with
CONFIG_LTO_CLANG_THIN=y and saw no modpost warnings. So I think this is
sufficiently odd to keep the fix local to this one instance. I will send
a v3 later today.

> > > > One note is that, we could discard padata_work_init()
> > > > because (1) and (3) are both annotated as __init.
> > > > So, another way of fixing is
> > > >    static __always_inline void padata_work_init(...)
> > > > because the compiler would determine padata_work_init()
> > > > would be small enough if the caller and callee belonged to
> > > > the same section.
> > > > 
> > > > I do not have a strong opinion.
> > 
> > I'm right there with you.  :-)
> > 
> > > > Honestly, I do not know what the best approach would be to fix this.
> > 
> > Either approach works, either can include an explanatory comment.
> > __ref seems more targeted to the problem at hand.
> 
> Right, I suspect __ref is the right way to go for this particular issue.
> I will add a comment regardless.
> 
> > > > If we go with the __ref annotation, I can pick this, but
> > > > at least can you add some comments?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > include/linux/init.h says:
> > > > "optimally document why the __ref is needed and why it's OK"
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I think this is the case that needs some comments
> > > > because LTO optimization looks too tricky to me.
> > > 
> > > Sure thing, I will send a v3 either Tuesday or Wednesday with an updated
> > > commit message and code comment if we end up going this route.
> > 
> > A nitpick, but as long as you're respinning, if we stay with this
> > approach, could you put __ref just before the function name?  init.h
> > says "The markers follow same syntax rules as __init / __initdata" and
> > for those it says "You should add __init immediately before the function
> > name" though there are plenty of places in the tree that don't do this.
> 
> Sure thing!
> 
> Cheers,
> Nathan
>