From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F33A6C433DB for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 05:04:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA5F8221E7 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 05:04:36 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org AA5F8221E7 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 06EA68D008E; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 00:04:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 01F508D0076; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 00:04:35 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id E508D8D008E; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 00:04:35 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0072.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFF6B8D0076 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 00:04:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin08.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BBE21EE6 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 05:04:35 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77746735710.08.hate63_19162242758b Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 777611819E621 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 05:04:35 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: hate63_19162242758b X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 7184 Received: from mail-io1-f42.google.com (mail-io1-f42.google.com [209.85.166.42]) by imf36.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2021 05:04:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io1-f42.google.com with SMTP id p72so31270332iod.12 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 21:04:34 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=vcdD4SJ/UJtTKofX4QSGmixhFV/E0gfx+ZOLgohHiJg=; b=a/W75Aud+WRY0eUuWRPhZ11bMHwR75cwfqOsm7TzUbgGgqtmPrD7gILhzAWVETTVoz Y+4eGU1vgc35pBm0h/77+FMUFVmHhvzlUBsN7iY7aHxtMwYRpYuhai58jMEi/v5hYpVr EJmTA74ZJuifl4FBQBc/6N4naNiEJN48Zmw7K9SMCpLJMAh+aS3mgrqBYT8fQ01dNwPR rKSFMOOCz7/d2jVcWdtx0QNHr6Fl6UVgpsYR43b9R7zOrXm+324PHYKXURtsqwMwFmkU 7VGn7VA6gtXGSGROq8FefLhwlbETbFGGTVTL1gKBOZyMswHuA3M/3EFlhKQ3RlD39EvM nzDg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533BkhdS9upgQBdsBw2Lxz8E9zzCh1xxqYvf1LDMP58z+AyPNy6G drtNFb0DfKIOqbSjjd2gQrE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz9drmHYLiK1+qRtINPstvzZsK5QeLoMsxQbH2TDitFv8DLpDoJtWqIYuBlSwaud9U9LO0UHw== X-Received: by 2002:a02:9042:: with SMTP id y2mr3428226jaf.94.1611637474552; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 21:04:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com (243.199.238.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.238.199.243]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d12sm11855755ioh.51.2021.01.25.21.04.33 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 25 Jan 2021 21:04:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 05:04:32 +0000 From: Dennis Zhou To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Nathan Chancellor , Tejun Heo , Christoph Lameter , Linux-MM , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , clang-built-linux , kbuild-all@lists.01.org, kernel test robot Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu: fix clang modpost warning in pcpu_build_alloc_info() Message-ID: References: <20201231212852.3175381-1-dennis@kernel.org> <20210104234651.GA3548546@ubuntu-m3-large-x86> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 12:07:24PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:55 AM Dennis Zhou wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 04:46:51PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 09:28:52PM +0000, Dennis Zhou wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Nathan, > > > > > > > > Hi Dennis, > > > > > > I did a bisect of the problematic config against defconfig and it points > > > out that CONFIG_GCOV_PROFILE_ALL is in the bad config but not the good > > > config, which makes some sense as that will mess with clang's inlining > > > heuristics. It does not appear to be the single config that makes a > > > difference but it gives some clarity. > > > > > > > Ah, thanks. To me it's kind of a corner case that I don't have a lot of > > insight into. __init code is pretty limited and this warning is really > > at the compilers whim. However, in this case only clang throws this > > warning. > > > > > I do not personally have any strong opinions around the patch but is it > > > really that much wasted memory to just annotate mask with __refdata? > > > > It's really not much memory, 1 bit per max # of cpus. The reported > > config is on the extreme side compiling with 8k NR_CPUS, so 1kb. I'm > > just not in love with the idea of adding a patch to improve readability > > and it cost idle memory to resolve a compile time warning. > > > > If no one else chimes in in the next few days, I'll probably just apply > > it and go from there. If another issue comes up I'll drop this and tag > > it as __refdata. > > I've come across this one again in linux-next today, and found that > I had an old patch for it already, that I had never submitted: > > From 7d6f40414490092b86f1a64d8c42426ee350da1a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Arnd Bergmann > Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 23:24:20 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] mm: percpu: fix section mismatch warning > > Building with arm64 clang sometimes (fairly rarely) shows a > warning about the pcpu_build_alloc_info() function: > > WARNING: modpost: vmlinux.o(.text+0x21697c): Section mismatch in > reference from the function cpumask_clear_cpu() to the variable > .init.data:pcpu_build_alloc_info.mask > The function cpumask_clear_cpu() references > the variable __initdata pcpu_build_alloc_info.mask. > This is often because cpumask_clear_cpu lacks a __initdata > annotation or the annotation of pcpu_build_alloc_info.mask is wrong. > > What appears to be going on here is that the compiler decides to not > inline the cpumask_clear_cpu() function that is marked 'inline' but not > 'always_inline', and it then produces a specialized version of it that > references the static mask unconditionally as an optimization. > > Marking cpumask_clear_cpu() as __always_inline would fix it, as would > removing the __initdata annotation on the variable. I went for marking > the function as __attribute__((flatten)) instead because all functions > called from it are really meant to be inlined here, and it prevents > the same problem happening here again. This is unlikely to be a problem > elsewhere because there are very few function-local static __initdata > variables in the kernel. > > Fixes: 6c207504ae79 ("percpu: reduce the number of cpu distance comparisons") > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann > > diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c > index 5ede8dd407d5..527181c46b08 100644 > --- a/mm/percpu.c > +++ b/mm/percpu.c > @@ -2662,10 +2662,9 @@ early_param("percpu_alloc", percpu_alloc_setup); > * On success, pointer to the new allocation_info is returned. On > * failure, ERR_PTR value is returned. > */ > -static struct pcpu_alloc_info * __init pcpu_build_alloc_info( > - size_t reserved_size, size_t dyn_size, > - size_t atom_size, > - pcpu_fc_cpu_distance_fn_t cpu_distance_fn) > +static struct pcpu_alloc_info * __init __attribute__((flatten)) > +pcpu_build_alloc_info(size_t reserved_size, size_t dyn_size, size_t atom_size, > + pcpu_fc_cpu_distance_fn_t cpu_distance_fn) > { > static int group_map[NR_CPUS] __initdata; > static int group_cnt[NR_CPUS] __initdata; > > > Not sure if this would be any better than your patch. > > Arnd Hi Arnd, I like this solution a lot more than my previous solution because this is a lot less fragile. Thanks, Dennis