From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: menglong8.dong@gmail.com
Cc: miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com, ojeda@kernel.org,
ndesaulniers@google.com, davem@davemloft.net,
edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, asml.silence@gmail.com,
imagedong@tencent.com, luiz.von.dentz@intel.com,
vasily.averin@linux.dev, jk@codeconstruct.com.au,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4] net: skb: prevent the split of kfree_skb_reason() by gcc
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 10:09:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220818100946.6ad96b06@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220816032846.2579217-1-imagedong@tencent.com>
On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 11:28:46 +0800 menglong8.dong@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>
>
> Sometimes, gcc will optimize the function by spliting it to two or
> more functions. In this case, kfree_skb_reason() is splited to
> kfree_skb_reason and kfree_skb_reason.part.0. However, the
> function/tracepoint trace_kfree_skb() in it needs the return address
> of kfree_skb_reason().
>
> This split makes the call chains becomes:
> kfree_skb_reason() -> kfree_skb_reason.part.0 -> trace_kfree_skb()
>
> which makes the return address that passed to trace_kfree_skb() be
> kfree_skb().
>
> Therefore, prevent this kind of optimization to kfree_skb_reason() by
> making the optimize level to "O1". I think these should be better
> method instead of this "O1", but I can't figure it out......
>
> This optimization CAN happen, which depend on the behavior of gcc.
> I'm not able to reproduce it in the latest kernel code, but it happens
> in my kernel of version 5.4.119. Maybe the latest code already do someting
> that prevent this happen?
>
> Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> Reported-by: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Sorry for a late and possibly off-topic chime in, is the compiler
splitting it because it thinks that skb_unref() is going to return
true? I don't think that's the likely case, so maybe we're better
off wrapping that skb_unref() in unlikely()?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-18 17:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-16 3:28 [PATCH net-next v4] net: skb: prevent the split of kfree_skb_reason() by gcc menglong8.dong
2022-08-16 9:02 ` Miguel Ojeda
2022-08-17 2:20 ` Menglong Dong
2022-08-17 5:54 ` Miguel Ojeda
2022-08-17 15:54 ` Nick Desaulniers
2022-08-18 16:31 ` Menglong Dong
2022-08-18 16:58 ` Segher Boessenkool
2022-08-19 14:55 ` Menglong Dong
2022-08-19 15:21 ` Segher Boessenkool
2022-08-20 11:00 ` Menglong Dong
2022-08-22 8:01 ` Florian Weimer
2022-08-23 16:23 ` Menglong Dong
2022-09-06 12:37 ` Florian Weimer
2022-09-06 15:30 ` Segher Boessenkool
2022-09-07 18:59 ` Florian Weimer
2022-09-07 19:47 ` Segher Boessenkool
2022-08-18 17:09 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2022-08-19 15:17 ` Menglong Dong
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=20220818100946.6ad96b06@kernel.org \
--to=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=asml.silence@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=imagedong@tencent.com \
--cc=jk@codeconstruct.com.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=luiz.von.dentz@intel.com \
--cc=menglong8.dong@gmail.com \
--cc=miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ojeda@kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=vasily.averin@linux.dev \
/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).