lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: perf test LLVM & clang 6 failing
Em Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 02:55:53PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> Em Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 01:45:21PM -0800, Matthias Kaehlcke escreveu:
> > El Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 01:57:56PM -0600 Josh Poimboeuf ha dit:
> > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 04:34:25PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > > Em Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:11:56AM -0800, Yonghong Song escreveu:
> > > > > On 11/27/17 9:04 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > > > > Em Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 04:16:52PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann escreveu:
> > > > > > > [ +Yonghong ]

> > > > > > + Josh
> > > > > > > On 11/24/2017 03:47 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > > > > > > FYI, just noticed, recently updated clang to version 6, from its
> > > > > > > > upstream git repo.

> > > > > > > Do you recall what was your LLVM version prior to this where it was
> > > > > > > working fine? (Wild guess from below would be the BPF inline asm
> > > > > > > support that was added recently to LLVM (2865ab6996) vs asm() used
> > > > > > > in headers included in the stdin header causing trouble due to arch
> > > > > > > mixup?)

> > > > > > So, if I go to the cset just before:

> > > > > > commit f5caf621ee357279e759c0911daf6d55c7d36f03
> > > > > > Author: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
> > > > > > Date: Wed Sep 20 16:24:33 2017 -0500

> > > > > > x86/asm: Fix inline asm call constraints for Clang
> > > > > > ---

> > > > > > 'perf test LLVM' works again:

> > > > > > [root@jouet ~]# perf test LLVM
> > > > > > 37: LLVM search and compile :
> > > > > > 37.1: Basic BPF llvm compile : Ok
> > > > > > 37.2: kbuild searching : Ok
> > > > > > 37.3: Compile source for BPF prologue generation : Ok
> > > > > > 37.4: Compile source for BPF relocation : Ok
> > > > > > [root@jouet ~]#

> > > > > > I.e. 'perf test LLVM' built from what is in my acme/perf/urgent branch,
> > > > > > targetted to v4.15, uses kernel headers and if I go to just before
> > > > > > f5caf621ee, it works again, both with clang from fedora26 (4.0.1) and
> > > > > > with 6.0, built from sources.

> > > > > This patch introduced a module level inline assembly.

> > > > > ...
> > > > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/asm.h
> > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/asm.h
> > > > > @@ -132,4 +132,15 @@
> > > > > /* For C file, we already have NOKPROBE_SYMBOL macro */
> > > > > #endif

> > > > > +#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> > > > > +/*
> > > > > + * This output constraint should be used for any inline asm which has a
> > > > > "call"
> > > > > + * instruction. Otherwise the asm may be inserted before the frame pointer
> > > > > + * gets set up by the containing function. If you forget to do this,
> > > > > objtool
> > > > > + * may print a "call without frame pointer save/setup" warning.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +register unsigned int __asm_call_sp asm("esp");
> > > > > +#define ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT "+r" (__asm_call_sp)
> > > > > +#endif
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > This will cause "clang ... -target bpf ..." failure since 4.0 does not have
> > > > > bpf inline asm support and 6.0 does not recognize the register 'esp'.

> > > > Ok, explains the problem then, Josh, ideas on how to proceed here?

> > > The original change to add the global inline asm:

> > > 5caf621ee35 ("x86/asm: Fix inline asm call constraints for Clang")

> > > was done to support clang in the first place. Before that change, a
> > > clang-built kernel didn't even boot. So I'm a bit perplexed by the fact
> > > that this change would be causing clang problems, since it was done to
> > > fix clang in the first place.

> > > Adding Andrey and Matthias, maybe they can help clarify things.

> > Indeed the change was needed to boot on x86.

> > I know next to nothing about BPF, if I understand correctly the error
> > is generated when compiling for the BPF "architecture" not for x86. In
> > this process x86 assembly headers are included, one of which contains
> > the declaration of the register variable, in an register that exists
> > on x86, but not BPS.

> > I guess the first questions is whether the x86 asm headers should/need
> > to be included when compiling for BPF. If this needed/can not be
> > easily avoided one option could be to put the declaration within an
> > ifdef __x86_64__ block.

> Right, unsure if this is the way to go, but fixes the problem here:

> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/asm.h
> @@ -136,6 +136,8 @@
> #endif
>
> #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> +#if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__)
> +/* bpf target builds also include these headers */
> /*
> * This output constraint should be used for any inline asm which has a "call"
> * instruction. Otherwise the asm may be inserted before the frame pointer
> @@ -145,5 +147,6 @@
> register unsigned long current_stack_pointer asm(_ASM_SP);
> #define ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT "+r" (current_stack_pointer)
> #endif
> +#endif

> #endif /* _ASM_X86_ASM_H */

> [root@jouet ~]# perf test LLVM
> 37: LLVM search and compile :
> 37.1: Basic BPF llvm compile : Ok
> 37.2: kbuild searching : Ok
> 37.3: Compile source for BPF prologue generation : Ok
> 37.4: Compile source for BPF relocation : Ok
> [root@jouet ~]#

> Is there any define clang generates for the bpf target?

Yes, __BPF__

https://clang.llvm.org/doxygen/BPF_8cpp_source.html

So, new patch:

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/asm.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/asm.h
index 219faaec51df..386a6900e206 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/asm.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/asm.h
@@ -136,6 +136,7 @@
#endif

#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
+#ifndef __BPF__
/*
* This output constraint should be used for any inline asm which has a "call"
* instruction. Otherwise the asm may be inserted before the frame pointer
@@ -145,5 +146,6 @@
register unsigned long current_stack_pointer asm(_ASM_SP);
#define ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT "+r" (current_stack_pointer)
#endif
+#endif

#endif /* _ASM_X86_ASM_H */
[root@jouet ~]# perf test LLVM
37: LLVM search and compile :
37.1: Basic BPF llvm compile : Ok
37.2: kbuild searching : Ok
37.3: Compile source for BPF prologue generation : Ok
37.4: Compile source for BPF relocation : Ok
[root@jouet ~]#

This last one looks better, no? Alexei? Daniel?

- Arnaldo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-28 19:00    [W:0.092 / U:4.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site