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 */
next prev 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