From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>,
andi@firstfloor.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rr tree
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:17:28 +1030 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200901071317.29141.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0901060845001.11819@quilx.com>
On Wednesday 07 January 2009 01:35:57 Christoph Lameter wrote:
> +/* This macro obfuscates arithmetic on a variable address so that gcc
> + shouldn't recognize it. This prevents optimizations such as the
> + famous:
> + strcpy(s, "xxx"+X) => memcpy(s, "xxx"+X, 4-X) */
> +#define reloc_hide(var, off) \
> + ({ __typeof__(&(var)) __ptr; \
> + __asm__ ("" : "=g"(__ptr) : "0"((void *)&(var) + (off))); \
> + *__ptr; })
>
> I dont get the point here.
This one example of gcc making assumptions about pointer arithmetic. It's
perfectly reasonable. It's also unhelpful cases like for per-cpu offsets.
Thus we use this macro to prevent GCC from making such assumptions.
We can't audit current and future gcc versions to see what other
optimizations might break our code on every arch. I just documented it,
and followed Richard's advice.
Am I missing a downside?
> Could we clearly document what the point of RELOC_HIDE is?
Sorry, I'm not sure I can improve on the current comment:
/* This macro obfuscates arithmetic on a variable address so that gcc
shouldn't recognize the original var, and make assumptions about it */
Cheers,
Rusty.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-07 2:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 94+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-05 3:32 linux-next: manual merge of the rr tree Stephen Rothwell
2009-01-05 6:57 ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-05 12:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-06 8:51 ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-06 9:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-06 13:13 ` Mike Travis
2009-01-06 13:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-06 14:21 ` Mike Travis
2009-01-06 14:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-07 2:46 ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-05 15:29 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-01-06 1:04 ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-06 15:05 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-01-07 2:47 ` Rusty Russell [this message]
2009-01-07 16:11 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-01-07 17:20 ` Andi Kleen
2009-01-07 19:01 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-01-08 20:48 ` Andi Kleen
2009-01-08 20:50 ` Andrew Morton
2009-01-08 21:15 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-01-08 21:49 ` Andi Kleen
2009-01-08 22:21 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-01-08 22:25 ` David Miller
2009-01-09 14:42 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-01-09 22:54 ` David Miller
2009-01-05 19:46 ` Mike Travis
2009-01-05 8:41 ` Rusty Russell
2009-01-06 3:46 ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-01-06 13:26 ` Ingo Molnar
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-01-09 1:53 Stephen Rothwell
2009-01-06 3:11 Stephen Rothwell
2008-12-29 7:51 Stephen Rothwell
2008-12-29 7:47 Stephen Rothwell
2008-12-29 8:02 ` Stephen Rothwell
2008-12-22 6:32 Stephen Rothwell
2008-12-22 7:58 ` Rusty Russell
2008-12-22 8:45 ` Mark McLoughlin
2009-01-04 23:30 ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-01-05 4:36 ` Greg KH
2009-01-05 5:56 ` Stephen Rothwell
2008-12-16 5:29 Stephen Rothwell
2008-12-15 6:15 Stephen Rothwell
2008-11-24 3:20 Stephen Rothwell
2008-11-20 3:24 Stephen Rothwell
2008-11-20 4:28 ` Rusty Russell
2008-11-14 4:13 Stephen Rothwell
2008-11-14 4:20 ` Stephen Rothwell
2008-11-14 4:30 ` David Miller
2008-11-14 4:36 ` Stephen Rothwell
2008-11-14 4:41 ` David Miller
2008-11-14 5:06 ` Stephen Rothwell
2008-11-14 6:42 ` David Miller
2008-11-15 22:32 ` Rusty Russell
2008-11-17 2:57 ` David Miller
2008-11-07 5:01 Stephen Rothwell
2008-10-29 4:28 Stephen Rothwell
2008-10-29 4:33 ` Stephen Rothwell
2008-10-29 22:42 ` Rusty Russell
2008-10-28 2:55 Stephen Rothwell
2008-10-28 7:19 ` Heiko Carstens
2008-10-28 7:24 ` Stephen Rothwell
2008-10-27 3:32 Stephen Rothwell
2008-10-24 2:21 Stephen Rothwell
2008-10-23 4:12 Stephen Rothwell
2008-10-23 5:16 ` Rusty Russell
2008-10-23 12:26 ` Rusty Russell
2008-10-23 12:50 ` Mike Travis
2008-10-23 4:01 Stephen Rothwell
2008-10-23 7:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-10-23 13:32 ` Rusty Russell
2008-10-23 3:56 Stephen Rothwell
2008-10-23 12:25 ` Rusty Russell
2008-09-12 21:53 Stephen Rothwell
2008-07-28 3:16 Stephen Rothwell
2008-07-28 3:13 Stephen Rothwell
2008-07-28 3:09 Stephen Rothwell
2008-07-22 4:58 Stephen Rothwell
2008-07-22 14:21 ` Mike Travis
2008-07-16 8:15 Stephen Rothwell
2008-07-17 5:46 ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-07-18 4:31 ` Rusty Russell
2008-07-14 6:52 Stephen Rothwell
2008-07-03 5:03 Stephen Rothwell
2008-07-03 5:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-07-03 8:07 ` Stephen Rothwell
2008-07-03 8:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-07-04 0:45 ` Rusty Russell
2008-07-04 0:29 ` Rusty Russell
2008-06-25 6:27 Stephen Rothwell
2008-06-25 6:38 ` Christian Borntraeger
2008-06-25 15:23 ` Stephen Rothwell
2008-06-25 6:27 Stephen Rothwell
2008-06-25 7:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-06-25 8:33 ` Rusty Russell
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=200901071317.29141.rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--to=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rth@twiddle.net \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=travis@sgi.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).