lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 11/10] objtool: Even more complex static block checks
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 09:13:09AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 09:12:32PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 08:49:17PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Subject: objtool: Even more complex static block checks
> > > From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > > Date: Tue Jan 16 20:17:01 CET 2018
> > >
> > > I've observed GCC transform:
> > >
> > > f()
> > > {
> > > if (!static_branch_unlikely())
> > > return;
> > >
> > > static_assert();
> > > A;
> > > }
> > >
> > > g()
> > > {
> > > f();
> > > }
> > >
> > > Into:
> > >
> > > f()
> > > {
> > > static_assert();
> > > A;
> > > }
> > >
> > > g()
> > > {
> > > if (static_branch_unlikely())
> > > f();
> > > }
> > >
> > > Which results in the assertion landing at f+0. The transformation is
> > > valid and useful; it avoids a pointless CALL+RET sequence, so we'll
> > > have to teach objtool how to deal with this.
> > >
> > > Do this by marking all CALL destinations with static_call when called
> > > from a static_block and non_static_call when called outside a
> > > static_block. This allows us to identify functions called exclusively
> > > from a static_block and start them with a static_block.
> >
> > Ew... where'd you place the assertion to trigger this?
>
> Its the patch I pastebin'ed you earlier, also see below.

Ah, I remembered you mentioning the problem, just forgot you showed me
the patch.

> > It's late and my brain has already clocked out, so I'll need to revisit
> > this tomorrow. But now I'm wondering if my basic block idea would be a
> > better way to solve this.
>
> I would think basic-blocks are inside functions, and this patch goes
> across functions, something you'd still need even if you had basic
> blocks.

Right, but I was thinking the patch would be a lot simpler with basic
blocks.

> Also, basic blocks are non-trivial because they can overlap.

Hm, I thought a basic block only has one entry point and one exit point.
How could they overlap?

--
Josh

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-01-18 00:20    [W:0.072 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site