Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:5 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:5;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ZTFAzuE58mkFbScV@smile.fi.intel.com> <20231019164240.lhg5jotsh6vfuy67@treble>
 <ZTFh0NeYtvgcjSv8@smile.fi.intel.com> <CAHk-=wjXG52UNKCwwEU1A+QWHYfvKOieV0uFOpPkLR0NSvOjtg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=whis2BJF2fv1xySAg2NTQ+C5fViNSGkLNCOqGzi-3y+8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZTFxEcjo4d6vXbo5@smile.fi.intel.com> <ZTFydEbdEYlxOxc1@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <CAHk-=wh_gbZE_ZsQ6+9gSPdXfoCtmuK-MFmBkO3ywMKFQEvb6g@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZTKUDzONVHXnWAJc@smile.fi.intel.com> <CAHk-=wipA4605yvnmjW7T9EvARPRCGLARty8UUzRGxic1SXqvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZTLHBYv6wSUVD/DW@smile.fi.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZTLHBYv6wSUVD/DW@smile.fi.intel.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 20 Oct 2023 12:43:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgHFSTuANT3jXsw1EtzdHQe-XQtWQACzeFxn2BEBzX-gA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] ext2, quota, and udf fixes for 6.6-rc1
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>
Cc:     Baokun Li <libaokun1@huawei.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Ferry Toth <ftoth@exalondelft.nl>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 at 11:29, Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> wrote:
>
> I'll reply to this with the attached object file, I assume it won't go to the
> mailing list, but should be available in your mailbox.

Honestly, both cases (that function gets inlined twice) look
*identical* from a quick look, apart from obviously the extra call to
__quota_error().

I might be missing something, but this most definitely is not a "gcc
ends up creating very different code when it doesn't need to
synchronize around the call" thing.

So a compiler issue looks very unlikely. No absolute guarantees - I
didn't do *that* kind of walk-through instruction by instruction - but
the results actually seem to line up perfectly.

Even register allocation didn't change, making the compare between #if
0 and without rather easy.

There's one extra spill/reload due to the call in the "non-#if0" case,
and that actually made me look twice (because it spilled %eax, and
then reloaded it as %rcx), but it turns that %eax/%ecx had the same
value at the time of the spill, so even that was not a "real"
difference.

So I will claim that no, it's not the compiler. It's some unrelated
subtle timing, or possibly just a random code layout issue (because
the code addresses do obviously change).

                    Linus