Re: [PATCH 5/7] rust: file: add `Kuid` wrapper

[Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 09:08:47AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 8:19 AM Miguel Ojeda
> <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 6:28 AM comex <comexk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Regarding the issue of wrappers not being inlined, it's possible to get LLVM to optimize C and Rust code together into an object file, with the help of a compatible Clang and LLD:
> > >
> > > @ rustc -O --emit llvm-bc a.rs
> > > @ clang --target=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu -O2 -c -emit-llvm -o b.bc b.c
> > > @ ld.lld -r -o c.o a.bc b.bc
> > >
> > > Basically LTO but within the scope of a single object file.  This would be redundant in cases where kernel-wide LTO is enabled.
> > >
> > > Using this approach might slow down compilation a bit due to needing to pass the LLVM bitcode between multiple commands, but probably not very much.
> > >
> > > Just chiming in as someone not involved in Rust for Linux but familiar with these tools.  Perhaps this has been considered before and rejected for some reason; I wouldn’t know.
> >
> > Thanks comex for chiming in, much appreciated.
> >
> > Yeah, this is what we have been calling the "local-LTO hack" and it
> > was one of the possibilities we were considering for non-LTO kernel
> > builds for performance reasons originally. I don't recall who
> > originally suggested it in one of our meetings (Gary or Björn
> > perhaps).
> >
> > If LLVM folks think LLVM-wise nothing will break, then we are happy to
> 
> On paper, nothing comes to mind.  No promises though.
> 
> From a build system perspective, I'd rather just point users towards
> LTO if they have this concern.  We support full and thin lto.  This
> proposal would add a third variant for just rust drivers.  Each
> variation on LTO has a maintenance cost and each have had their own
> distinct fun bugs in the past.  Not sure an additional variant is
> worth the maintenance cost, even if it's technically feasible.
> 

Actually, the "LTO" in "local-LTO" may be misleading ;-) The problem we
want to resolve here is letting Rust code call small C functions (or
macros) without exporting the symbols. To me, it's really just "static
linking" a library (right now it's rust/helpers.o) contains small C
functions and macros used by Rust into a Rust driver kmodule, the "LTO"
part can be optional: let the linker make the call.

Regards,
Boqun

> > go ahead with that (since it also solves the performance side), but it
> > would be nice to know if it will always be OK to build like that, i.e.
> > I think Andreas actually tried it and it seemed to work and boot, but
> > the worry is whether there is something subtle that could have bad
> > codegen in the future.
> >
> > (We will also need to worry about GCC.)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Miguel
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> ~Nick Desaulniers