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 v2 2/3] arm64: Optimize __READ_ONCE() with CONFIG_LTO=y
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 10:03:32 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260129100332.500248d3@pumpkin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260129005645.747680-3-elver@google.com>
On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 01:52:33 +0100
Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
> Rework arm64 LTO __READ_ONCE() to improve code generation as follows:
>
> 1. Replace _Generic-based __unqual_scalar_typeof() with more complete
> __rwonce_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).
>
> Once our minimum compiler versions are bumped, this just becomes
> TYPEOF_UNQUAL() (or typeof_unqual() should we decide to adopt C23
> naming). Sadly the fallback version of __rwonce_typeof_unqual() cannot
> be used as a general TYPEOF_UNQUAL() fallback (see code comments).
>
> 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.
>
...
> Signed-off-by: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
> ---
> v2:
> * Add __rwonce_typeof_unqual() as fallback for old compilers.
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/rwonce.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/rwonce.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/rwonce.h
> index fc0fb42b0b64..712de3238f9a 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/rwonce.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/rwonce.h
> @@ -19,6 +19,23 @@
> "ldapr" #sfx "\t" #regs, \
> ARM64_HAS_LDAPR)
>
> +#ifdef USE_TYPEOF_UNQUAL
> +#define __rwonce_typeof_unqual(x) TYPEOF_UNQUAL(x)
> +#else
> +/*
> + * Fallback for older compilers to infer an unqualified type.
> + *
> + * Uses the fact that auto is supposed to drop qualifiers. Unlike
Maybe:
In all versions of clang 'auto' correctly drops qualifiers.
A reminder in here that this is clang only might also clarify things.
> + * typeof_unqual(), the type must be complete (defines an unevaluated local
> + * variable); this must trivially hold because __READ_ONCE() returns a value.
Not sure that is needed.
> + *
> + * Another caveat is that because of array-to-pointer decay, an array is
> + * inferred as a pointer type; this is fine for __READ_ONCE usage, but is
> + * unsuitable as a general fallback implementation for TYPEOF_UNQUAL.
gcc < 11.0 stops it being used elsewhere.
Something shorter?
The arrary-to-pointer decay doesn't matter here.
David
> + */
> +#define __rwonce_typeof_unqual(x) typeof(({ auto ____t = (x); ____t; }))
> +#endif
> +
> /*
> * When building with LTO, there is an increased risk of the compiler
> * converting an address dependency headed by a READ_ONCE() invocation
> @@ -32,8 +49,7 @@
> #define __READ_ONCE(x) \
> ({ \
> typeof(&(x)) __x = &(x); \
> - int atomic = 1; \
> - union { __unqual_scalar_typeof(*__x) __val; char __c[1]; } __u; \
> + union { __rwonce_typeof_unqual(*__x) __val; char __c[1]; } __u; \
> switch (sizeof(x)) { \
> case 1: \
> asm volatile(__LOAD_RCPC(b, %w0, %1) \
> @@ -56,9 +72,9 @@
> : "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:[~2026-01-29 10:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-29 0:52 [PATCH v2 0/3] arm64: Fixes for __READ_ONCE() with CONFIG_LTO=y Marco Elver
2026-01-29 0:52 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] arm64: Fix non-atomic " Marco Elver
2026-01-29 1:21 ` Boqun Feng
2026-01-29 1:32 ` Marco Elver
2026-01-29 0:52 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] arm64: Optimize " Marco Elver
2026-01-29 10:03 ` David Laight [this message]
2026-01-29 10:12 ` Marco Elver
2026-01-29 10:39 ` David Laight
2026-01-29 0:52 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64, compiler-context-analysis: Permit alias analysis through " Marco Elver
2026-01-29 2:41 ` Boqun Feng
2026-01-29 9:52 ` David Laight
2026-01-30 12:04 ` 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=20260129100332.500248d3@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