From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/core: Drop __weak attribute from arch_perf_update_userpage() prototype
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 16:03:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <86r0qgbu4j.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230612145423.GC83892@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 15:54:23 +0100,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 02:16:28PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 03, 2023 at 09:25:19AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > Reiji reports that the arm64 implementation of arch_perf_update_userpage()
> > > is now ignored and replaced by the dummy stub in core code.
> > > This seems to happen since the PMUv3 driver was moved to driver/perf.
> >
> > I guess we should have a Cc stable then?
> >
> > The below implies this has always been on dodgy ground, and so it's probably
> > inaccurate to give this a Fixes tag pointing to the move.
> >
> > > As it turns out, dropping the __weak attribute from the *prototype*
> > > of the function solves the problem. You're right, this doesn't seem
> > > to make much sense. And yet... It appears that both symbols get
> > > flagged as weak, and that the first one to appear in the link order
> > > wins:
> > >
> > > $ nm drivers/perf/arm_pmuv3.o|grep arch_perf_update_userpage
> > > 0000000000001db0 W arch_perf_update_userpage
> >
> > Ah, so having it on th *declaration* will apply to any *definition*. :/
>
> Yikes..
>
> > That suggests this is a bad pattern generally, and we should probably remove
> > the other __weak instances in headers. Lukcily it seems there aren't that many:
> >
> > [mark@lakrids:~/src/linux]% git grep __weak -- **/*.h | wc -l
> > 50
> >
> > IMO we'd should aim to remove __weak entirely; it causes a number of weird
> > things like this and it'd be much easier to manage with a small amount of
> > ifdeffery.
> >
> > Peter, thoughts?
>
> Not a fan of __weak myself, after having had to deal with how the
> compilers actually make it work.
>
> Where do I queue this? perf/urgent?
That'd be my preference, as arm64 is currently a bit broken and I'd
like 6.4 to be functional.
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-12 15:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-03 8:25 [PATCH] perf/core: Drop __weak attribute from arch_perf_update_userpage() prototype Marc Zyngier
2023-06-04 16:08 ` Reiji Watanabe
2023-06-12 13:16 ` Mark Rutland
2023-06-12 14:16 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-06-12 14:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-06-12 15:03 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2023-06-16 9:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=86r0qgbu4j.wl-maz@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=reijiw@google.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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.