On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 2:47 PM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 25.02.21 14:38, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The inlining logic in clang-13 is rewritten to often not inline
> > some functions that were inlined by all earlier compilers.
> >
> > In case of the memblock interfaces, this exposed a harmless bug
> > of a missing __init annotation:
> >
> > WARNING: modpost: vmlinux.o(.text+0x507c0a): Section mismatch in reference from the function memblock_bottom_up() to the variable .meminit.data:memblock
> > The function memblock_bottom_up() references
> > the variable __meminitdata memblock.
> > This is often because memblock_bottom_up lacks a __meminitdata
> > annotation or the annotation of memblock is wrong.
> >
> > Interestingly, these annotations were present originally, but got removed
> > with the explanation that the __init annotation prevents the function
> > from getting inlined. I checked this again and found that while this
> > is the case with clang, gcc (version 7 through 10, did not test others)
> > does inline the functions regardless.
>
> Did I understand correctly, that with this change it will not get
> inlined with any version of clang? Maybe __always_inline is more
> appropriate then.
>
> (I don't see why to not inline that function, but I am obviously not a
> compiler person :) )
Looking at the assembler output in the arm64 build that triggered the
warning, I see this code:
0000000000000a40 <memblock_bottom_up>:
a40: 55 push %rbp
a41: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
a44: 41 56 push %r14
a46: 53 push %rbx
a47: e8 00 00 00 00 call a4c <memblock_bottom_up+0xc>
a48: R_X86_64_PLT32 __sanitizer_cov_trace_pc-0x4
a4c: 48 c7 c7 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%rdi
a4f: R_X86_64_32S memblock
a53: e8 00 00 00 00 call a58 <memblock_bottom_up+0x18>
a54: R_X86_64_PLT32 __asan_load1_noabort-0x4
a58: 44 0f b6 35 00 00 00 movzbl 0x0(%rip),%r14d # a60
<memblock_bottom_up+0x20>
a5f: 00
a5c: R_X86_64_PC32 memblock-0x4
a60: bf 02 00 00 00 mov $0x2,%edi
a65: 44 89 f6 mov %r14d,%esi
a68: e8 00 00 00 00 call a6d <memblock_bottom_up+0x2d>
a69: R_X86_64_PLT32
__sanitizer_cov_trace_const_cmp1-0x4
a6d: 41 83 fe 01 cmp $0x1,%r14d
a71: 77 20 ja a93 <memblock_bottom_up+0x53>
a73: e8 00 00 00 00 call a78 <memblock_bottom_up+0x38>
a74: R_X86_64_PLT32 __sanitizer_cov_trace_pc-0x4
a78: 44 89 f3 mov %r14d,%ebx
a7b: 80 e3 01 and $0x1,%bl
a7e: 41 83 e6 01 and $0x1,%r14d
a82: 31 ff xor %edi,%edi
a84: 44 89 f6 mov %r14d,%esi
a87: e8 00 00 00 00 call a8c <memblock_bottom_up+0x4c>
a88: R_X86_64_PLT32
__sanitizer_cov_trace_const_cmp1-0x4
a8c: 89 d8 mov %ebx,%eax
a8e: 5b pop %rbx
a8f: 41 5e pop %r14
a91: 5d pop %rbp
a92: c3 ret
a93: e8 00 00 00 00 call a98 <memblock_bottom_up+0x58>
a94: R_X86_64_PLT32 __sanitizer_cov_trace_pc-0x4
a98: 48 c7 c7 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%rdi
a9b: R_X86_64_32S .data+0x3c0
a9f: 4c 89 f6 mov %r14,%rsi
aa2: e8 00 00 00 00 call aa7 <memblock_bottom_up+0x67>
aa3: R_X86_64_PLT32
__ubsan_handle_load_invalid_value-0x4
aa7: eb cf jmp a78 <memblock_bottom_up+0x38>
aa9: 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 cs nopw 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
ab0: 00 00 00
ab3: 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 cs nopw 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
aba: 00 00 00
abd: 0f 1f 00 nopl (%rax)
This means that the sanitiers added a lot of extra checking around what
would have been a trivial global variable access otherwise. In this case,
not inlining would be a reasonable decision.
Arnd
