lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] BUG(): CONFIG_BUG=n version of BUG() should be unreachable()
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 December 2009, David Daney wrote:
>> David Daney wrote:
>>
>> Well that may be too strong an objection, but I would really recommend
>> deeper consideration.
>>
>> If you use: #define BUG() __builtin_unreachable()
>>
>> which is what your patch does for GCC >= 4.5, it is truly undefined what
>> happens if it is ever reached. One typical thing that might happen is
>> that you start to try to execute data. It is unclear to me if it is
>> preferable in the kernel to do that, rather than loop endlessly. You
>> would likely achieve smaller code, but at what cost?
>
> That is exactly what I was about to reply at first as well, but the
> definition is BUG() is really "this should never happen". Normally,
> i.e. CONFIG_BUG=y, we will print a stack dump and kill the running
> task here. The case that Alexander is patching is for !CONFIG_BUG,
> where we intentionally remove the handling for the unexpected bug
> in order to reduce code size. This option is really just for people
> that want to squeeze out every possibly byte from the kernel object
> code, while everyone else just enables CONFIG_BUG.
>
> Currently, this is "do { } while (0)", which on old compilers is
> the best approximation of doing the right thing there, but may
> cause build warnings.
>
> __builtin_unreachable() is even better on gcc-4.5, because gcc may
> save a few more instructions and not print warnings any more. Getting
> into an undefined state here is not an issue, because if we get to
> a BUG() statement, the system state is already known to be broken
> and !CONFIG_BUG means we don't even try to to improve it any more.
>
> The alternative "do { } while (1)" is not ideal, because an
> endless loop still requires more code (typically one instruction)
> than doing nothing at all.
>

Well "do { } while (1)" is exactly the expansion of unreachable() for
GCC < 4.5. Since GCC-4.5 has not been released yet, most people will
get these extra looping instructions if you change BUG in this way.


You might also consider the discussions here:

http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=125296549116694&w=2

When I suggested a similar patch.


> If there are only than a handful of places that actually cause a warning,
> using "do { } while (0)" (or __builtin_unreachable where available) and
> fixing up the code using it might be better.
>
> Arnd
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-01-04 19:09    [W:0.048 / U:1.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site