public inbox for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>
To: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
	llvm@lists.linux.dev, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] arm64: Optimize __READ_ONCE() with CONFIG_LTO=y
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 11:16:43 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260126111643.534c8274@pumpkin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260126002936.2676435-3-elver@google.com>

On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 01:25:11 +0100
Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:

> Rework arm64 LTO __READ_ONCE() to improve code generation as follows:
> 
> 1. Replace the _Generic-based __unqual_scalar_typeof() with the builtin
>    typeof_unqual(). This strips qualifiers from all types, not just
>    integer types, which is required to be able to assign (must be
>    non-const) to __u.__val in the non-atomic case (required for #2).
> 
> One subtle point here is that non-integer types of __val could be const
> or volatile within the union with the old __unqual_scalar_typeof(), if
> the passed variable is const or volatile. This would then result in a
> forced load from the stack if __u.__val is volatile; in the case of
> const, it does look odd if the underlying storage changes, but the
> compiler is told said member is "const" -- it smells like UB.
> 
> 2. Eliminate the atomic flag and ternary conditional expression. Move
>    the fallback volatile load into the default case of the switch,
>    ensuring __u is unconditionally initialized across all paths.
>    The statement expression now unconditionally returns __u.__val.

Does it even need to be a union?
I think (eg):
	TYPEOF_UNQUAL(*__x) __val;	\
	...
		: "=r" (*(__u32 *)&__val)	\
will have the same effect (might need an __force for sparse).

Also is the 'default' branch even needed?
READ_ONCE() rejects sizes other than 1, 2, 4 and 8.
A quick search only found one oversize read - for 'struct vcpu_runstate_info'
in arch/x86/kvm/xen.c
Requiring that code use a different define might make sense.

I also did some x86-64 build timings with compiletime_assert_rwonce_type()
commented out.
Expanding and compiling that check seems to add just over 1% to the
build time.
So anything to shrink that define is likely to be noticeable.

	David
	
> 
...
> Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/rwonce.h | 7 +++----
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/rwonce.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/rwonce.h
> index fc0fb42b0b64..9963948f4b44 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/rwonce.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/rwonce.h
> @@ -32,8 +32,7 @@
>  #define __READ_ONCE(x)							\
>  ({									\
>  	typeof(&(x)) __x = &(x);					\
> -	int atomic = 1;							\
> -	union { __unqual_scalar_typeof(*__x) __val; char __c[1]; } __u;	\
> +	union { TYPEOF_UNQUAL(*__x) __val; char __c[1]; } __u;		\
>  	switch (sizeof(x)) {						\
>  	case 1:								\
>  		asm volatile(__LOAD_RCPC(b, %w0, %1)			\
> @@ -56,9 +55,9 @@
>  			: "Q" (*__x) : "memory");			\
>  		break;							\
>  	default:							\
> -		atomic = 0;						\
> +		__u.__val = *(volatile typeof(*__x) *)__x;		\
>  	}								\
> -	atomic ? (typeof(*__x))__u.__val : (*(volatile typeof(*__x) *)__x);\
> +	__u.__val;							\
>  })
>  
>  #endif	/* !BUILD_VDSO */



  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-01-26 11:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-01-26  0:25 [PATCH 0/3] arm64: Fixes for __READ_ONCE() with CONFIG_LTO=y Marco Elver
2026-01-26  0:25 ` [PATCH 1/3] arm64: Fix non-atomic " Marco Elver
2026-01-26  0:25 ` [PATCH 2/3] arm64: Optimize " Marco Elver
2026-01-26  7:56   ` Arnd Bergmann
2026-01-26 19:54     ` Marco Elver
2026-01-26 22:24       ` Arnd Bergmann
2026-01-27 12:01         ` Marco Elver
2026-01-27 14:30           ` David Laight
2026-01-27 15:04             ` Marco Elver
2026-01-27 18:54               ` David Laight
2026-01-26 22:55       ` David Laight
2026-01-26 11:16   ` David Laight [this message]
2026-01-26 23:15     ` Marco Elver
2026-01-27 10:13       ` David Laight
2026-01-26  0:25 ` [PATCH 3/3] arm64, compiler-context-analysis: Permit alias analysis through " Marco Elver

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=20260126111643.534c8274@pumpkin \
    --to=david.laight.linux@gmail.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=elver@google.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox