Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/hwmon: Fix a build error used with clang compiler

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 11/2/22 8:32 AM, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
Quoting Jani Nikula (2022-10-28 11:46:21)
On Fri, 28 Oct 2022, Gwan-gyeong Mun <gwan-gyeong.mun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Resend, because some content was accidentally omitted from the previous
reply.
Please ignore the previous email.

Hi all,

I should have written the original commit message more accurately, but
it seems that it was written inaccurately.

If the FIELD_PREP macro is expanded, the following macros are used.

#define FIELD_PREP(_mask, _val)                                               \
       ({                                                              \
               __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0ULL, _val, "FIELD_PREP: ");    \
               ((typeof(_mask))(_val) << __bf_shf(_mask)) & (_mask);   \
       })


#define __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _reg, _val, _pfx)                     \
       ({                                                              \
               BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(!__builtin_constant_p(_mask),          \
                                _pfx "mask is not constant");          \
               BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG((_mask) == 0, _pfx "mask is zero");    \
               BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__builtin_constant_p(_val) ?           \
                                ~((_mask) >> __bf_shf(_mask)) & (_val) : 0, \
                                _pfx "value too large for the field"); \
               BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__bf_cast_unsigned(_mask, _mask) >     \
                                __bf_cast_unsigned(_reg, ~0ull),       \
                                _pfx "type of reg too small for mask"); \
               __BUILD_BUG_ON_NOT_POWER_OF_2((_mask) +                 \
                                             (1ULL << __bf_shf(_mask))); \
       })

Among them, a build error is generated by the lower part of the
__BF_FIELD_CHECK() macro.

               BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__bf_cast_unsigned(_mask, _mask) >     \
                                __bf_cast_unsigned(_reg, ~0ull),       \
                                _pfx "type of reg too small for mask"); \


Here, if you apply an argument to this macro, it will look like the
following.

__bf_cast_unsigned(field_msk, field_msk) > __bf_cast_unsigned(0ULL, ~0ull)

The result is always false because an unsigned int value of type
field_msk is not always greater than the maximum value of unsigned long
long .
So, a build error occurs due to the following part of the clang compiler
option.

[-Werror,-Wtautological-constant-out-of-range-compare]

You can simply override this warning in Clang by adding the build option
below, but this seems like a bad attempt

i915/Makefile
CFLAGS_i915_hwmon.o += -Wno-tautological-constant-out-of-range-compare

The easiest way to solve this is to use a constant value, not a
variable, as an argument to FIELD_PREP.

And since the REG_FIELD_PREP() macro suggested by Jani requires a const
expression as the first argument, it cannot be changed with this macro
alone in the existing code, it must be changed to input a constant value
as shown below.

We've added REG_FIELD_PREP() precisely to avoid the problems with the
types and ranges, as we want it to operate on u32. It also uses
__is_constexpr() to avoid dependencies on compiler implementation and
optimizations.

Please use REG_FIELD_PREP() and a constant value. Maybe rethink the
interface if needed.

Ashutosh and GG, can we get a fix for this merged ASAP. It's currently
blocking the drm-intel-gt-next pull request.

Regards, Joonas

Hi Joonas,
As a workaround patch, this patch[1] was reviewed by Ashutoshr and acked by Jani.

[1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/509248/?series=110094&rev=5


Br,

G.G.

BR,
Jani.





diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
index 08c921421a5f..abb3a194c548 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ hwm_field_read_and_scale(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat,
i915_reg_t rgadr,

   static void
   hwm_field_scale_and_write(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, i915_reg_t rgadr,
-                         const u32 field_msk, int nshift,
+                         int nshift,
                            unsigned int scale_factor, long lval)
   {
          u32 nval;
@@ -111,8 +111,8 @@ hwm_field_scale_and_write(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat,
i915_reg_t rgadr,
          /* Computation in 64-bits to avoid overflow. Round to nearest. */
          nval = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)lval << nshift, scale_factor);

-       bits_to_clear = field_msk;
-       bits_to_set = REG_FIELD_PREP(field_msk, nval);
+       bits_to_clear = PKG_PWR_LIM_1;
+       bits_to_set = REG_FIELD_PREP(PKG_PWR_LIM_1, nval);

          hwm_locked_with_pm_intel_uncore_rmw(ddat, rgadr,
                                              bits_to_clear, bits_to_set);
@@ -406,7 +406,6 @@ hwm_power_write(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, u32 attr,
int chan, long val)
          case hwmon_power_max:
                  hwm_field_scale_and_write(ddat,
                                            hwmon->rg.pkg_rapl_limit,
-                                         PKG_PWR_LIM_1,
                                            hwmon->scl_shift_power,
                                            SF_POWER, val);
                  return 0;



In addition, if there is no build problem regardless of the size of the
type as the first argument in FIELD_PREP, it is possible through the
following modification.
(Since this modification modifies include/linux/bitfield.h , I will send
it as a separate patch.
    )

However, it seems that we need to have Jani's confirm whether it is okay
to use FIELD_PREP() instead of REG_FIELD_PREP() which is forced to u32
return type in i915.

diff --git a/include/linux/bitfield.h b/include/linux/bitfield.h
index c9be1657f03d..6e96799b6f38 100644
--- a/include/linux/bitfield.h
+++ b/include/linux/bitfield.h
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@

   #include <linux/build_bug.h>
   #include <asm/byteorder.h>
-
+#include <linux/overflow.h>
   /*
    * Bitfield access macros
    *
@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@
                                   ~((_mask) >> __bf_shf(_mask)) & (_val)
: 0, \
                                   _pfx "value too large for the field"); \
                  BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__bf_cast_unsigned(_mask, _mask) >     \
-                                __bf_cast_unsigned(_reg, ~0ull),       \
+                                __bf_cast_unsigned(_reg,
type_max(__unsigned_scalar_typeof(_reg))),    \
                                   _pfx "type of reg too small for mask"); \
                  __BUILD_BUG_ON_NOT_POWER_OF_2((_mask) +                 \
                                                (1ULL << __bf_shf(_mask))); \
@@ -84,7 +84,7 @@
    */
   #define FIELD_MAX(_mask)                                               \
          ({                                                              \
-               __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0ULL, 0ULL, "FIELD_MAX: ");     \
+               __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask,
type_min(__unsigned_scalar_typeof(_mask)),
type_min(__unsigned_scalar_typeof(_mask)), "FIELD_MAX: ");   \
                  (typeof(_mask))((_mask) >> __bf_shf(_mask));            \
          })

@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@
    */
   #define FIELD_FIT(_mask, _val)                                         \
          ({                                                              \
-               __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0ULL, 0ULL, "FIELD_FIT: ");     \
+               __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask,
type_min(__unsigned_scalar_typeof(_mask)),
type_min(__unsigned_scalar_typeof(_val)), "FIELD_FIT: ");    \
                  !((((typeof(_mask))_val) << __bf_shf(_mask)) & ~(_mask)); \
          })

@@ -111,7 +111,7 @@
    */
   #define FIELD_PREP(_mask, _val)
           \
          ({                                                              \
-               __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0ULL, _val, "FIELD_PREP: ");    \
+               __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask,
type_min(__unsigned_scalar_typeof(_mask)), _val, "FIELD_PREP: ");       \
                  ((typeof(_mask))(_val) << __bf_shf(_mask)) & (_mask);   \
          })

@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@
    */
   #define FIELD_GET(_mask, _reg)                                         \
          ({                                                              \
-               __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _reg, 0U, "FIELD_GET: ");       \
+               __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _reg,
type_min(__unsigned_scalar_typeof(_reg)), "FIELD_GET: "); \
                  (typeof(_mask))(((_reg) & (_mask)) >> __bf_shf(_mask)); \
          })


Br,

G.G.

On 10/27/22 9:32 PM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 10:16:47 -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:


Hi Nick,

Thanks, I can repro now.

I haven't detangled the macro soup, but I noticed:

1. FIELD_PREP is defined in include/linux/bitfield.h which has the
following comment:
   18  * Mask must be a compilation time constant.

I had comments about this here:

https://lore.kernel.org/intel-gfx/87ilk7pwrw.wl-ashutosh.dixit@xxxxxxxxx/

The relevant part being:

---- {quote} ----
./include/linux/bitfield.h:71:53: note: expanded from macro '__BF_FIELD_CHECK'
                  BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__bf_cast_unsigned(_mask, _mask) >     \

So clang seems to break here at this line in __BF_FIELD_CHECK (note ~0ull
also occurs here):

              BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__bf_cast_unsigned(_mask, _mask) >     \
                               __bf_cast_unsigned(_reg, ~0ull),       \
                               _pfx "type of reg too small for mask"); \

So it goes through previous checks including the "mask is not constant"
check. As Nick Desaulniers mentions "__builtin_constant_p is evaluated
after most optimizations have run" so by that time both compilers (gcc and
clang) have figured out that even though _mask is coming in as function
argument it is really the constant below:

#define   PKG_PWR_LIM_1              REG_GENMASK(14, 0)

But it is not clear why clang chokes on this "type of reg too small for
mask" check (and gcc doesn't) since everything is u32.
---- {end quote} ----


2. hwm_field_scale_and_write only has one callsite.

The following patch works:

If we need to fix it at our end yes we can come up with one of these
patches. But we were hoping someone from clang/llvm can comment about the
"type of reg too small for mask" stuff. If this is something which needs to
be fixed in clang/llvm we probably don't want to hide the issue.


```
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
index 9e9781493025..6ac29d90b92a 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ hwm_field_read_and_scale(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat,
i915_reg_t rgadr,

   static void
   hwm_field_scale_and_write(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, i915_reg_t rgadr,
-                         u32 field_msk, int nshift,
+                         int nshift,
                            unsigned int scale_factor, long lval)
   {
          u32 nval;
@@ -111,8 +111,8 @@ hwm_field_scale_and_write(struct hwm_drvdata
*ddat, i915_reg_t rgadr,
          /* Computation in 64-bits to avoid overflow. Round to nearest. */
          nval = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)lval << nshift, scale_factor);

-       bits_to_clear = field_msk;
-       bits_to_set = FIELD_PREP(field_msk, nval);
+       bits_to_clear = PKG_PWR_LIM_1;
+       bits_to_set = FIELD_PREP(PKG_PWR_LIM_1, nval);

          hwm_locked_with_pm_intel_uncore_rmw(ddat, rgadr,
                                              bits_to_clear, bits_to_set);
@@ -406,7 +406,6 @@ hwm_power_write(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, u32
attr, int chan, long val)
          case hwmon_power_max:
                  hwm_field_scale_and_write(ddat,
                                            hwmon->rg.pkg_rapl_limit,
-                                         PKG_PWR_LIM_1,
                                            hwmon->scl_shift_power,
                                            SF_POWER, val);
                  return 0;
```
Though I'm not sure if you're planning to add further callsites of
hwm_field_scale_and_write with different field_masks?

I have reasons for keeping it this way, it's there in the link above if you
are interested.


Alternatively, (without the above diff),

```
diff --git a/include/linux/bitfield.h b/include/linux/bitfield.h
index c9be1657f03d..6f40f12bcf89 100644
--- a/include/linux/bitfield.h
+++ b/include/linux/bitfield.h
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
   #define _LINUX_BITFIELD_H

   #include <linux/build_bug.h>
+#include <linux/const.h>
   #include <asm/byteorder.h>

   /*
@@ -62,7 +63,7 @@

   #define __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _reg, _val, _pfx)                      \
          ({                                                              \
-               BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(!__builtin_constant_p(_mask),          \
+               BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(!__is_constexpr(_mask),                \
                                   _pfx "mask is not constant");          \
                  BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG((_mask) == 0, _pfx "mask is zero");    \
                  BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__builtin_constant_p(_val) ?           \
```
will produce:
error: call to __compiletime_assert_407 declared with 'error'
attribute: FIELD_PREP: mask is not constant

I haven't tested if that change is also feasible (on top of fixing
this specific instance), but I think it might help avoid more of these
subtleties wrt. __builtin_constant_p that depende heavily on compiler,
compiler version, optimization level.

Not disagreeing, can do something here if needed.

Thanks.
--
Ashutosh

--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center



[Index of Archives]     [AMD Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux