All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: Daniel Gregory <daniel.gregory@bytedance.com>
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
	Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>,
	dev@dpdk.org, Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@bytedance.com>,
	Liang Ma <liangma@bytedance.com>,
	feifei.wang2@arm.com, david.marchand@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] eal/arm: replace RTE_BUILD_BUG on non-constant
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 08:19:58 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240628081958.30fc1662@hermes.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240628100520.GA3779302@ste-uk-lab-gw>

On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 11:05:20 +0100
Daniel Gregory <daniel.gregory@bytedance.com> wrote:

> > > > The ARM implementation of rte_pause uses RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON to check
> > > > memorder, which is not constant. This causes compile errors when it is
> > > > enabled with RTE_ARM_USE_WFE. eg.
> > > > 
> > > > ../lib/eal/arm/include/rte_pause_64.h: In function ‘rte_wait_until_equal_16’:
> > > > ../lib/eal/include/rte_common.h:530:56: error: expression in static assertion is not constant
> > > >   530 | #define RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) do { static_assert(!(condition), #condition); } while (0)
> > > >       |                                                        ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > ../lib/eal/arm/include/rte_pause_64.h:156:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON’
> > > >   156 |         RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON(memorder != rte_memory_order_acquire &&
> > > >       |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > 
> > > > Fix the compile errors by replacing the check with an assert, like in
> > > > the generic implementation (lib/eal/include/generic/rte_pause.h).  
> > > 
> > > No, don't hide the problem.
> > > 
> > > What code is calling these. Looks like a real bug. Could be behind layers of wrappers.  
> > 
> > I support Stephen's opinion.
> > Please look for the real issue.  
> 
> In DPDK, I have found 26 calls of rte_wait_until_equal_16, largely split
> between app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c and app/test/test_timer.c, with
> a couple calls in lib/eal/include/rte_pflock.h and
> lib/eal/include/rte_ticketlock.h as well. 16 calls of
> rte_wait_until_equal_32, spread amongst various test cases
> (test_func_reentrancy.c test_mcslock.c, test_mempool_perf.c, ...), two
> drivers (drivers/event/opdl/opdl_ring.c and
> drivers/net/thunderx/nicvf_rxrx.c), lib/eal/common/eal_common_mcfg.c,
> lib/eal/include/generic/rte_spinlock.h, lib/ring/rte_ring_c11_pvt.h,
> lib/ring/rte_ring_generic_pvt.h and lib/eal/include/rte_mcslock.h. There
> is a single call to rte_wait_until_equal_64 in app/test/test_pmd_perf.c
> 
> They all correctly use the primitives from rte_stdatomic.h
> 
> As I discussed on another chain
> https://lore.kernel.org/dpdk-dev/20240509110251.GA3795959@ste-uk-lab-gw/
> from what I've seen, it seems that neither Clang nor GCC allow for
> static checks on the parameters of inline functions. For instance, the
> following does not compile:
> 
> static inline __attribute__((always_inline)) int
> fn(int val)
> {
> 	_Static_assert(val == 0, "val nonzero");
> 	return 0;
> }
> 
> int main(void) {
> 	return fn(0);
> }
> 
> ( https://godbolt.org/z/TrfWqYoGo )
> 
> With the same "expression in static assertion is not constant" error
> that I get when cross-compiling DPDK for ARM with WFE enabled on main:

This is unexpected, but I can validate that it works that way.
Maybe because of combination of how inlining works and how the
static asserts are evaluated.

It does work if fn() is a macro

#define fn(val) ({ static_assert(val == 0, "val nonzero"); 0; })



  reply	other threads:[~2024-06-28 15:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-05-02 14:21 [PATCH] eal/arm: replace RTE_BUILD_BUG on non-constant Daniel Gregory
2024-05-02 16:20 ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-05-02 17:44   ` Daniel Gregory
2024-05-02 18:27     ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-05-02 21:48     ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-05-03  9:46       ` Daniel Gregory
2024-05-04  0:56         ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-05-09 11:02           ` Daniel Gregory
2024-05-03 13:32 ` David Marchand
2024-05-03 14:21   ` Daniel Gregory
2024-05-03 18:27 ` [PATCH v2] " Daniel Gregory
2024-05-03 18:30   ` Daniel Gregory
2024-05-04  0:59   ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-06-27 15:08     ` Thomas Monjalon
2024-06-28 10:05       ` Daniel Gregory
2024-06-28 15:19         ` Stephen Hemminger [this message]
2024-05-06  9:30   ` Ruifeng Wang
2024-05-11 17:00   ` Wathsala Wathawana Vithanage
2024-10-04 17:47   ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-10-08  9:47     ` Morten Brørup
2024-05-04  1:02 ` [PATCH] " Stephen Hemminger
2024-05-09 11:11   ` Daniel Gregory
2024-05-09 16:47     ` Tyler Retzlaff
2024-05-11 16:48 ` Wathsala Wathawana Vithanage

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=20240628081958.30fc1662@hermes.local \
    --to=stephen@networkplumber.org \
    --cc=daniel.gregory@bytedance.com \
    --cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=feifei.wang2@arm.com \
    --cc=liangma@bytedance.com \
    --cc=punit.agrawal@bytedance.com \
    --cc=ruifeng.wang@arm.com \
    --cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
    /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.