From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, TVD_SUBJ_WIPE_DEBT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AC93C432BE for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 15:05:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84B6360F4C for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 15:05:27 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 84B6360F4C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lists.ozlabs.org Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4GwR3n74QZz306R for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 01:05:25 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20161025 header.b=M4z1byWr; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com (client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::532; helo=mail-pg1-x532.google.com; envelope-from=npiggin@gmail.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20161025 header.b=M4z1byWr; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail-pg1-x532.google.com (mail-pg1-x532.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::532]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4GwR3157ylz2yJ8 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 01:04:45 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-pg1-x532.google.com with SMTP id w7so2166329pgk.13 for ; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 08:04:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:subject:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :message-id:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Cob2RUhWAcEaeA//3zLd/8IlPPHsYtXjUY5LhWVYGsE=; b=M4z1byWrMqrdBM022DQOMxPzkwXcBBHvojZqiZlR+RCfvVgFLm5Cwx2BHv1zab8o6q 5NompJCPFB4A+4oIKIhKUkE2S9jjWIGSikDtn0HdHQ5wDsVMt/h4X/3u8MNvU+E091y4 IQUcJQaTE9XXt7PiadWe+DL9MshYDRRfXNkdQjGPCtUszpyYk7+Ly4iTVHDwL5SOsSHa s1F4y7Hm+YMnrvPFcZZ9IY6vcjMVY6doBluPDj96+eZcg4Ni3lxpGF8bYhB9kvPBhaHY QBxEeq13O9KKR9O0S/Mhq8m0LvudQtC9Rc13DAWz1ZVwCyg6K34Hs3bMIp2bIYHSjMvf gxHQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:subject:to:cc:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:message-id:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Cob2RUhWAcEaeA//3zLd/8IlPPHsYtXjUY5LhWVYGsE=; b=ml6JvQAu2yhbIkeRb/AcaaBeGsrA1m9HLQBOa0puGHG4+by/O9pFBGl1/Mqz316SpQ GzAfsySEeH+j9WsOCrdqRXJqAE7BKa4CiK5HEJEEyP78ZftQrK1qupq98DW9W5aMoy2a zr9hSxDllvVcHqyBoT5BlMRL12EGtRhO2ra2zMhjCauD/N1N5xPItuxXpxSmfPskaVPT q19saVi+3uEbK2ev7oZ/oGIfE6rOYqs5199bq/sQQj2VqDTTGiwm/BYLnWjpWx4Rezq9 JqKPWEvbq/bHNHCub+DE0/OO56MUseY7u+wM+5jP2J8kFAjzbISlbRSD1JYBi/V3Buj3 j2/A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533j173lEGwy0sLLkW7ythL+Q6cddYTfnLyHJKYUCG8x5dDH4Q8F 9sQeRNlYKY6A0fwb2QjZv8g= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyZ9lTKc1LpWB4eAQOFClkGPQgBNEmilLXLk4Fzje/XARSHOyYMnBh2W8c4PALLBvOth18n7w== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:2171:b029:3ab:eca3:af59 with SMTP id r17-20020a056a002171b02903abeca3af59mr4263197pff.46.1629990282261; Thu, 26 Aug 2021 08:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (220-244-72-10.tpgi.com.au. [220.244.72.10]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x4sm3608641pff.126.2021.08.26.08.04.41 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 26 Aug 2021 08:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 01:04:36 +1000 From: Nicholas Piggin Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] powerpc/bug: Remove specific powerpc BUG_ON() and WARN_ON() on PPC32 To: Segher Boessenkool References: <1628834356.pr4zgn1xf1.astroid@bobo.none> <20210818150653.GJ1583@gate.crashing.org> <1629946707.f6ptz0tgle.astroid@bobo.none> <20210826124901.GY1583@gate.crashing.org> <1629983260.5jkx2jf0y8.astroid@bobo.none> <20210826143708.GC1583@gate.crashing.org> In-Reply-To: <20210826143708.GC1583@gate.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <1629989540.drlhb24t2w.astroid@bobo.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Excerpts from Segher Boessenkool's message of August 27, 2021 12:37 am: > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 11:57:52PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: >> Excerpts from Segher Boessenkool's message of August 26, 2021 10:49 pm: >> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 01:26:14PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: >> >> Excerpts from Segher Boessenkool's message of August 19, 2021 1:06 am= : >> >> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 04:08:13PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: >> >> >> This one possibly the branches end up in predictors, whereas condi= tional=20 >> >> >> trap is always just speculated not to hit. Branches may also have = a >> >> >> throughput limit on execution whereas trap could be more (1 per cy= cle >> >> >> vs 4 per cycle on POWER9). >> >> >=20 >> >> > I thought only *taken* branches are just one per cycle? >> >>=20 >> >> Taken branches are fetched by the front end at one per cycle (assumin= g=20 >> >> they hit the BTAC), but all branches have to be executed by BR at one= =20 >> >> per cycle >> >=20 >> > This is not true. (Simple) predicted not-taken conditional branches a= re >> > just folded out, never hit the issue queues. And they are fetched as >> > many together as fit in a fetch group, can complete without limits as >> > well. >>=20 >> No, they are all dispatched and issue to the BRU for execution. It's=20 >> trivial to construct a test of a lot of not taken branches in a row >> and time a loop of it to see it executes at 1 cycle per branch. >=20 > (s/dispatched/issued/) ? >=20 > Huh, this was true on p8 already. Sorry for my confusion. In my > defence, this doesn't matter for performance on "real code". >=20 >> > Correctly predicted simple conditional branches just get their predict= ion >> > validated (and that is not done in the execution units). Incorrectly >> > predicted branches the same, but those cause a redirect and refetch. >>=20 >> How could it validate prediction without issuing? It wouldn't know when >> sources are ready. >=20 > In the backend. But that is just how it worked on older cores :-/ Okay. I don't know about older cores than POWER9. Backend would normally=20 include execution though. Only other place you could do it if you don't issue/exec would be after it goes back in order, like completion. But that would be horrible for mispredict penalty. >> >> The first problem seems like the show stopper though. AFAIKS it would= =20 >> >> need a special builtin support that does something to create the tabl= e >> >> entry, or a guarantee that we could put an inline asm right after the >> >> builtin as a recognized pattern and that would give us the instructio= n >> >> following the trap. >> >=20 >> > I'm not quite sure what this means. Can't you always just put a >> >=20 >> > bla: asm(""); >> >=20 >> > in there, and use the address of "bla"? >>=20 >> Not AFAIKS. Put it where? >=20 > After wherever you want to know the address after. You will have to > make sure they stay together somehow. I still don't follow. > It is much easier to get the address of something, not the address after > it. If you know it is just one insn anyway, that isn't hard to handle > either (even if prefixed insns exist). >=20 >> > If not, you need to say a lot >> > more about what you actually want to do :-/ >>=20 >> We need to put the address (or relative offset) of the trap instruction >> into an entry in a different section. Basically this: >>=20 >> __builtin_trap(); >> asm ("1: \n\t" >> " .section __bug_table,\"aw\" \n\t" >> "2: .4byte 1b - 2b - 4 \n\t" >> " .previous"); >>=20 >> Where the 1: label must follow immediately after the trap instruction,=20 >> and where the asm must be emitted even for the case of no-return traps=20 >> (but anything following the asm could be omitted). >=20 > The address *after* the trap insn? That is much much harder than the > address *of* the trap insn. No the address of the trap instruction, hence the -4. I have the label after because that is the semantics I have from inline asm. If you could give a built in that put a label at the address of the trap=20 instruction that could be used later by inline asm then that could work too: __builtin_labeled_trap("1:"); asm (" .section __bug_table,\"aw\" \n\t" "2: .4byte 1b - 2b \n\t" " .previous");