Bdragon28 added a comment.

In D79916#2279866 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79916#2279866>, @jrtc27 wrote:

> In D79916#2279863 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79916#2279863>, @Bdragon28 wrote:
>
>> In D79916#2279816 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79916#2279816>, @jrtc27 wrote:
>>
>>> In D79916#2279812 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79916#2279812>, @Bdragon28 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In D79916#2279045 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D79916#2279045>, @jrtc27 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This has significantly regressed FreeBSD's performance with the new 
>>>>> version of Clang. It seems Clang does not inline functions at -O1, unlike 
>>>>> GCC, and since FreeBSD currently compiles its kernel with -O whenever 
>>>>> debug symbols are enabled[1] (which, of course, is almost always true), 
>>>>> this results in all its `static inline` helper functions not being 
>>>>> inlined at all, a pattern that is common in the kernel, used for things 
>>>>> like `get_curthread` and the atomics implementations.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] This is a dubious decision made in r140400 in 2005 to provide "truer 
>>>>> debugger stack traces" (well, before then there was ping-ponging between 
>>>>> -O and -O2 based on concerns around correctness vs performance, but amd64 
>>>>> is an exception that has always used -O2 since r127180 it seems). Given 
>>>>> that GCC will inline at -O, at least these days, the motivation seems to 
>>>>> no longer exist, and compiling a kernel at anything other than -O2 (or 
>>>>> maybe -O3) seems like a silly thing to do, but nevertheless it's what is 
>>>>> currently done.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cc: @dim @trasz
>>>>
>>>> This is actually SUCH a bad idea that a kernel built with -O will *not 
>>>> work at all* on 32 bit powerpc platforms (presumably due to allocating 
>>>> stack frames in the middle of assembly fragments in the memory management 
>>>> that are supposed to be inlined at all times.) I had to hack kern.pre.mk 
>>>> to rquest -O2 at all times just to get a functioning kernel.
>>>
>>> Well, -O0, -O1, -O2 and -O should all produce working kernels, and any 
>>> cases where they don't are compiler bugs (or kernel bugs if they rely on 
>>> UB) that should be fixed, not worked around by tweaking the compiler flags 
>>> in a fragile way until you get the behaviour relied on. Correctness and 
>>> performance are very different issues here.
>>
>> As an example:
>>
>>   static __inline void
>>   mtsrin(vm_offset_t va, register_t value)
>>   {
>>   
>>           __asm __volatile ("mtsrin %0,%1; isync" :: "r"(value), "r"(va));
>>   }
>>
>> This code is used in the mmu when bootstrapping the cpu like so:
>>
>>   for (i = 0; i < 16; i++)
>>           mtsrin(i << ADDR_SR_SHFT, kernel_pmap->pm_sr[i]);
>>   powerpc_sync();
>>   
>>   sdr = (u_int)moea_pteg_table | (moea_pteg_mask >> 10);
>>   __asm __volatile("mtsdr1 %0" :: "r"(sdr));
>>   isync();
>>   
>>   tlbia();
>>
>> During the loop there, we are in the middle of programming the MMU segment 
>> registers in real mode, and is supposed to be doing all work out of 
>> registers. (and powerpc_sync() and isync() should be expanded to their 
>> single assembly instruction, not a function call. The whole point of calling 
>> those is that we are in an inconsistent hardware state and need to sync up 
>> before continuing execution)
>>
>> If there isn't a way to force inlining, we will have to change to using 
>> preprocessor macros in cpufunc.h.
>
> There is, it's called `__attribute__((always_inline))` and supported by both 
> GCC and Clang. But at -O0 you'll still have register allocation to deal with, 
> so really that code is just fundamentally broken and should not be written in 
> C. There is no way for you to guarantee stack spills are not used, it's way 
> out of scope for C.

Is there a way to have always_inline and unused at the same time? I tried using 
always_inline and it caused warnings in things that used *parts* of cpufunc.h.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D79916/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D79916

_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Reply via email to