From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ed1-f43.google.com (mail-ed1-f43.google.com [209.85.208.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF91F259CAF for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2025 17:57:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.43 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1766080648; cv=none; b=llz86ewTGfsfZseFuGuM46BLuz0XLqJJHmGqaogxxU1JnEMr7Yq8awRwBNw7UFk/NkVvP9zMofHwJqHViurQpRs87tZkuDMnH9Ux7Aik1ebuGshNGU47xWjbfhlZqsfmXo70ma/hiiCp1JvROgjPJWGspRs4lOplSgQiQHBdjEY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1766080648; c=relaxed/simple; bh=wETgaVi/4Srcrvn11NsykVRNrUKwSV1mN9QfsLJ8b7M=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=HMkiMQsbjH+rqz9csN/gkwZAHSevxlf8W2UEsFi/IMAG6mSp4WkKqjWVz8KTQtIGTwpMmloeBdfnCLpyAMIWQ6AKrUEkA4Qqp00+MCm3ypDxWtTLB6iwL9ATygYf5YoE+FvfXtGWQGOkwXSwYaFiXqrke46cSCdQ+iSoTtqWW9M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=RPbhr5LV; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.43 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="RPbhr5LV" Received: by mail-ed1-f43.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-64b4f730a02so1303740a12.0 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2025 09:57:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1766080645; x=1766685445; darn=lists.linux.dev; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=CAT4NIB50wSSQJ2eRS7sx9I/iK0vGJNZ4n3UlMbS9UY=; b=RPbhr5LVKJwZP8AHxDy6jcfG9IJUid4iyRoEbtcpQQ+GBXTgoZWfvRAjgrnRBdTALd bsLujr50y4FdovlGp1Hr+4Pclppc4JbVgbjRWX/I2VWT/vyFtoSXfFRI+LRyaykSX8Lh MIpNWYIW2heFKy/YHhGT3PPz0C5oPBt81miWtOUY2q5/ZdchIb/OWLfTLex6gOjc8iMp 7RTuJCMnqGu+fai+NNfXlFUlN+/UZT2Q4DuI+1TBQQdm5a+NnxQRpZYSxa62SmXFnq1c yX8Svy5Skxt3kyLDK8OytebMFelAE9FM/EJdhToztkO/G05X8iOn3+h25kA1d6y4mmLU 9t8Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1766080645; x=1766685445; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=CAT4NIB50wSSQJ2eRS7sx9I/iK0vGJNZ4n3UlMbS9UY=; b=BBb9QFKmfHfElERendZmHe+bFduv/9MDcPr2JCCcAuFzp+qt/mxm8ooRWhdWa86GVK 9nZ38afDp+k0gAGQ0a4njCO2kMYG/ts+ru+eSnSVMcc41LtjEYdJKBvhr3Mfi8lyS2Ze bvWbLVkKkSFMWFWSLLrpnDOisHA4eMKxYeJ4uCZzB2WP5P7wTQ0x1QH3k0KNWS70GpO8 1uCnFnEGw5vW7rePOrvB20xt9BXy7GXVZCTg+FVb3dXKjXsXyNOfhtIqkQVmW6h5ObkE CVSy11jefSE2j8Jkf0aeABpTSpuGTg1Ks0DP5cmOJ8RLZtTW3OavLJCELHFJI3COO+6G I7Bg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUIhslPpMANZwWpV7YzkdgSxXQKhDMSv9OQEFgfSVP/PI9fiLwUEDdzRt8NK7rAzAXCStit@lists.linux.dev X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzFKwGW5/tpoLv9XGPWe0F1D2z55NPriwMbfIEFivhWj0c4MwhH /cl5zdA4nAzy4nkRDYQlX4c6eC7nscG6GoLVCTVRQZT36Al0I8CyHF4UNrhVwA== X-Gm-Gg: AY/fxX4ahPCTplIkGHpPvwJNOBfNJ5dYdED6bD77yu86zGajy1aNvWWs0VVw5lwqm8I AMRhUQcrn+dn/j0Oxqwe9cMERDAXwIRCSznhkbcF3unz6TBoeZcJoXuiVJkuAdEft8tR5ZUD3bR 0QB0iADgf/zhX/h5Zlv0MM4lbxg7EdvYgoHOkggJg+PXABnZNHf9A92RoIohmIi2/sgPn5aMTMi 2fWXgsM+fBUiD88m1POwpssQ0oq8t0M0FiihsnSjMn2/lQuApk8fCIXJ5n8nO2rrJeLoK+CujaV w39JAvQV5gtYruZsyTVDQSVcD9w5nYx8ZQ8i/fWzzVyc11x4Kj8x0Zu5g6vgJvGWn8haj7BuGQr lK1QQFGvqdFULZg74a6nt9T7FDczOXrGgqr/na5bqiYrgiuVV25tpjAXk5ZXL3UK6so7u+HYSwE gIV3MxhU2Xyhaq9WPWCAjnZ0Gh0ThX09XystCO+OrYewvdte0GdiR0 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEX3LAgYnT5Lo93smJLzWDPMc1uQ4Aj1gMjYO0ty7+7jdOdeZ5GXQKimSTh9jzRGuiit8vdow== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600d:1b:b0:477:a219:cdb7 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-47a8fa81e14mr202186375e9.0.1766073295465; Thu, 18 Dec 2025 07:54:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from pumpkin (82-69-66-36.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk. [82.69.66.36]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-47be27b749esm48092275e9.14.2025.12.18.07.54.54 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 18 Dec 2025 07:54:55 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 15:54:52 +0000 From: David Laight To: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: Boqun Feng , Joel Fernandes , "Paul E. McKenney" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nicholas Piggin , Michael Ellerman , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Will Deacon , Peter Zijlstra , Alan Stern , John Stultz , Neeraj Upadhyay , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Frederic Weisbecker , Josh Triplett , Uladzislau Rezki , Steven Rostedt , Lai Jiangshan , Zqiang , Ingo Molnar , Waiman Long , Mark Rutland , Thomas Gleixner , Vlastimil Babka , maged.michael@gmail.com, Mateusz Guzik , Jonas Oberhauser , rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, lkmm@lists.linux.dev, Gary Guo , Nikita Popov , llvm@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/4] compiler.h: Introduce ptr_eq() to preserve address dependency Message-ID: <20251218155452.6ae47481@pumpkin> In-Reply-To: References: <20251218014531.3793471-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <20251218014531.3793471-2-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <20251218090313.33923750@pumpkin> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.38; arm-unknown-linux-gnueabihf) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: lkmm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 08:51:02 -0500 Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > On 2025-12-18 04:03, David Laight wrote: > [...] > >> + * > >> + * The compiler barrier() is ineffective at fixing this issue. It does > >> + * not prevent the compiler CSE from losing the address dependency: > >> + * > >> + * int fct_2_volatile_barriers(void) > >> + * { > >> + * int *a, *b; > >> + * > >> + * do { > >> + * a = READ_ONCE(p); > >> + * asm volatile ("" : : : "memory"); > >> + * b = READ_ONCE(p); > >> + * } while (a != b); > >> + * asm volatile ("" : : : "memory"); <-- barrier() > >> + * return *b; > >> + * } > >> + * > >> + * With gcc 14.2 (arm64): > >> + * > >> + * fct_2_volatile_barriers: > >> + * adrp x0, .LANCHOR0 > >> + * add x0, x0, :lo12:.LANCHOR0 > >> + * .L2: > >> + * ldr x1, [x0] <-- x1 populated by first load. > >> + * ldr x2, [x0] > >> + * cmp x1, x2 > >> + * bne .L2 > >> + * ldr w0, [x1] <-- x1 is used for access which should depend on b. > >> + * ret > >> + * > >> + * On weakly-ordered architectures, this lets CPU speculation use the > >> + * result from the first load to speculate "ldr w0, [x1]" before > >> + * "ldr x2, [x0]". > >> + * Based on the RCU documentation, the control dependency does not > >> + * prevent the CPU from speculating loads. > > > > I'm not sure that example (of something that doesn't work) is really necessary. > > The simple example of, given: > > return a == b ? *a : 0; > > the generated code might speculatively dereference 'b' (not a) before returning > > zero when the pointers are different. > > In the past discussion that led to this new API, AFAIU, Linus made it > clear that this counter example needs to be in a comment: I might remember that... But if you read the proposed comment it starts looking like an example. It is also very long for the file it is in - even if clearly marked as why the same effect can't be achieved with barrier(). Maybe the long gory comment belongs in the rst file? I do wonder if some places need this: #define OPTIMISER_HIDE_VAL(x) ({ auto _x = x; OPTIMISER_HIDE_VAR(_x); _x; }) Then you could do: #define ptr_eq(x, y) (OPTIMISER_HIDE_VAL(x) == OPTIMISER_HIDE_VAL(y)) which includes the check that the pointers are the same type. But it would be more generally useful for hiding constants from the optimiser. David > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wgBgh5U+dyNaN=+XCdcm2OmgSRbcH4Vbtk8i5ZDGwStSA@mail.gmail.com/ > > This counter-example is what convinced him that this addresses a real > issue. > > Thanks, > > Mathieu > >