lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: linux-next: build warning after merge of the rcu tree
On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 10:02 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 04:06:22PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > After merging the rcu (I think) tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> > allnoconfig) produced this warning:
> >
> > kernel/time/timer.c: In function 'schedule_timeout':
> > kernel/time/timer.c:969:20: warning: 'timer.expires' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
> > 969 | long diff = timer->expires - expires;
> > | ~~~~~^~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Introduced by (bisected to) commit
> >
> > c4127fce1d02 ("timer: Use hlist_unhashed_lockless() in timer_pending()")
> >
> > x86_64-linux-gnu-gcc (Debian 9.2.1-21) 9.2.1 20191130
>
> Well, if the timer is pending, then ->expires has to have been
> initialized, but off where the compiler cannot see it, such as during a
> previous call to __mod_timer(). And the change may have made it harder
> for the compiler to see all of these relationships, but...
>
> I don't see this warning with gcc version 7.4.0. Just out of curiosity,
> what are you running, Stephen?
>
> Eric, any thoughts for properly educating the compiler on this one?

Ah... the READ_ONCE() apparently turns off the compiler ability to
infer that this branch should not be taken.

Since __mod_timer() is inlined we could perhaps add a new option

diff --git a/kernel/time/timer.c b/kernel/time/timer.c
index 4820823515e9..8bbce552568b 100644
--- a/kernel/time/timer.c
+++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
@@ -944,6 +944,7 @@ static struct timer_base *lock_timer_base(struct
timer_list *timer,

#define MOD_TIMER_PENDING_ONLY 0x01
#define MOD_TIMER_REDUCE 0x02
+#define MOD_TIMER_NOTPENDING 0x04

static inline int
__mod_timer(struct timer_list *timer, unsigned long expires, unsigned
int options)
@@ -960,7 +961,7 @@ __mod_timer(struct timer_list *timer, unsigned
long expires, unsigned int option
* the timer is re-modified to have the same timeout or ends up in the
* same array bucket then just return:
*/
- if (timer_pending(timer)) {
+ if (!(options & MOD_TIMER_NOTPENDING) && timer_pending(timer)) {
/*
* The downside of this optimization is that it can result in
* larger granularity than you would get from adding a new
@@ -1891,7 +1892,7 @@ signed long __sched schedule_timeout(signed long timeout)

timer.task = current;
timer_setup_on_stack(&timer.timer, process_timeout, 0);
- __mod_timer(&timer.timer, expire, 0);
+ __mod_timer(&timer.timer, expire, MOD_TIMER_NOTPENDING);
schedule();
del_singleshot_timer_sync(&timer.timer);
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-12 07:38    [W:0.166 / U:5.556 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site