From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: menglong8.dong@gmail.com
Cc: miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com, ojeda@kernel.org,
ndesaulniers@google.com, davem@davemloft.net,
edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, asml.silence@gmail.com,
imagedong@tencent.com, luiz.von.dentz@intel.com,
vasily.averin@linux.dev, jk@codeconstruct.com.au,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4] net: skb: prevent the split of kfree_skb_reason() by gcc
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 10:09:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220818100946.6ad96b06@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220816032846.2579217-1-imagedong@tencent.com>
On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 11:28:46 +0800 menglong8.dong@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>
>
> Sometimes, gcc will optimize the function by spliting it to two or
> more functions. In this case, kfree_skb_reason() is splited to
> kfree_skb_reason and kfree_skb_reason.part.0. However, the
> function/tracepoint trace_kfree_skb() in it needs the return address
> of kfree_skb_reason().
>
> This split makes the call chains becomes:
> kfree_skb_reason() -> kfree_skb_reason.part.0 -> trace_kfree_skb()
>
> which makes the return address that passed to trace_kfree_skb() be
> kfree_skb().
>
> Therefore, prevent this kind of optimization to kfree_skb_reason() by
> making the optimize level to "O1". I think these should be better
> method instead of this "O1", but I can't figure it out......
>
> This optimization CAN happen, which depend on the behavior of gcc.
> I'm not able to reproduce it in the latest kernel code, but it happens
> in my kernel of version 5.4.119. Maybe the latest code already do someting
> that prevent this happen?
>
> Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> Reported-by: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Sorry for a late and possibly off-topic chime in, is the compiler
splitting it because it thinks that skb_unref() is going to return
true? I don't think that's the likely case, so maybe we're better
off wrapping that skb_unref() in unlikely()?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-18 17:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-16 3:28 [PATCH net-next v4] net: skb: prevent the split of kfree_skb_reason() by gcc menglong8.dong
2022-08-16 9:02 ` Miguel Ojeda
2022-08-17 2:20 ` Menglong Dong
2022-08-17 5:54 ` Miguel Ojeda
2022-08-17 15:54 ` Nick Desaulniers
2022-08-18 16:31 ` Menglong Dong
2022-08-18 16:58 ` Segher Boessenkool
2022-08-19 14:55 ` Menglong Dong
2022-08-19 15:21 ` Segher Boessenkool
2022-08-20 11:00 ` Menglong Dong
2022-08-22 8:01 ` Florian Weimer
2022-08-23 16:23 ` Menglong Dong
2022-09-06 12:37 ` Florian Weimer
2022-09-06 15:30 ` Segher Boessenkool
2022-09-07 18:59 ` Florian Weimer
2022-09-07 19:47 ` Segher Boessenkool
2022-08-18 17:09 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2022-08-19 15:17 ` Menglong Dong
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220818100946.6ad96b06@kernel.org \
--to=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=asml.silence@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=imagedong@tencent.com \
--cc=jk@codeconstruct.com.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=luiz.von.dentz@intel.com \
--cc=menglong8.dong@gmail.com \
--cc=miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ojeda@kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=vasily.averin@linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.