On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 12:25:06PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>
> I don't mind changing READ_ONCE_NOCHECK to READ_ONCE. But I don't have
> strong preference either way.
>
> We could do:
> #define arch_atomic_read_is_already_instrumented 1
> and then skip instrumentation in asm-generic if it's defined. But I
> don't think it's worth it.
>
> There is no functional difference, it's only an optimization (now
> somewhat questionable). As Andrey said, one can get a splash of
> reports anyway, and it's the first one that is important. We use KASAN
> with panic_on_warn=1 so we don't even see the rest.
I'm getting couple of new stack size warnings that are all the result
of the _NOCHECK.
/git/arm-soc/mm/page_alloc.c: In function 'show_free_areas':
/git/arm-soc/mm/page_alloc.c:4685:1: error: the frame size of 3368
bytes is larger than 3072 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=]
}
/git/arm-soc/lib/atomic64_test.c: In function 'test_atomic':
/git/arm-soc/lib/atomic64_test.c:148:1: error: the frame size of 6528
bytes is larger than 3072 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=]
}
^
/git/arm-soc/lib/atomic64_test.c: In function 'test_atomic64':
/git/arm-soc/lib/atomic64_test.c:243:1: error: the frame size of 7112
bytes is larger than 3072 bytes [-Werror=frame-larger-than=]
This is with my previous set of patches already applied, so
READ_ONCE should not cause problems. Reverting
the READ_ONCE_NOCHECK() in atomic_read() and atomic64_read()
back to READ_ONCE()
I also get a build failure as a result of your patch, but this one is
not addressed by using READ_ONCE():
In file included from /git/arm-soc/arch/x86/include/asm/atomic.h:7:0,
from /git/arm-soc/include/linux/atomic.h:4,
from /git/arm-soc/arch/x86/include/asm/thread_info.h:53,
from /git/arm-soc/include/linux/thread_info.h:25,
from /git/arm-soc/arch/x86/include/asm/preempt.h:6,
from /git/arm-soc/include/linux/preempt.h:80,
from /git/arm-soc/include/linux/spinlock.h:50,
from /git/arm-soc/include/linux/mmzone.h:7,
from /git/arm-soc/include/linux/gfp.h:5,
from /git/arm-soc/include/linux/mm.h:9,
from /git/arm-soc/mm/slub.c:12:
/git/arm-soc/mm/slub.c: In function '__slab_free':
/git/arm-soc/arch/x86/include/asm/cmpxchg.h:174:2: error: 'asm'
operand has impossible constraints
asm volatile(pfx "cmpxchg%c4b %2; sete %0" \
^
/git/arm-soc/arch/x86/include/asm/cmpxchg.h:183:2: note: in expansion
of macro '__cmpxchg_double'
__cmpxchg_double(LOCK_PREFIX, p1, p2, o1, o2, n1, n2)
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/git/arm-soc/include/asm-generic/atomic-instrumented.h:236:2: note: in
expansion of macro 'arch_cmpxchg_double'
arch_cmpxchg_double(____p1, (p2), (o1), (o2), (n1), (n2)); \
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/git/arm-soc/mm/slub.c:385:7: note: in expansion of macro 'cmpxchg_double'
if (cmpxchg_double(&page->freelist, &page->counters,
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/git/arm-soc/scripts/Makefile.build:308: recipe for target 'mm/slub.o' failed
http://pastebin.com/raw/qXVpi9Ev has the defconfig file I used, and I get the
error with any gcc version I tried (4.9 through 7.0.1).
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
