On Thu, 23 Mar 2023, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 11:00:41AM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > Greg raised the question of whether the inline function is really as
> > efficient as a macro.
> >
> > I tried the following definitions:
> >
> > #define to_gbphy_dev(d) container_of(d, struct gbphy_device, dev)
> >
> > static inline struct gbphy_device *extra_to_gbphy_dev(const struct device *_dev)
> > {
> > return container_of(_dev, struct gbphy_device, dev);
> > }
> >
> > And the following uses:
> >
> > ssize_t macro_protocol_id_show(struct device *dev,
> > struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> > {
> > struct gbphy_device *gbphy_dev = to_gbphy_dev(dev);
> >
> > return sprintf(buf, "%c macro 0x%02x\n", *buf, gbphy_dev->cport_desc->protocol_id);
> > }
> > ssize_t extra_protocol_id_show(struct device *dev,
> > struct device_attribute *attr, char *buf)
> > {
> > struct gbphy_device *gbphy_dev = extra_to_gbphy_dev(dev);
> >
> > return sprintf(buf, "extra 0x%02x %c\n", gbphy_dev->cport_desc->protocol_id, *buf);
> > }
> >
> > They are a little bit different to avoid too much compiler optimization.
> >
> > After doing make drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.s, I get similar looking
> > code in both cases:
> >
> > Macro version:
> >
> > .type macro_protocol_id_show, @function
> > macro_protocol_id_show:
> > endbr64
> > 1: call __fentry__
> > .section __mcount_loc, "a",@progbits
> > .quad 1b
> > .previous
> > pushq %rbp #
> > movq %rdx, %rbp # tmp96, buf
> > pushq %rbx #
> > # drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.c:40: {
> > movq %rdi, %rbx # tmp95, dev
> > # drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.c:43: return sprintf(buf, "%c macro 0x%02x\n", *buf, gbphy_dev->cport_desc->protocol_id);
> > call __sanitizer_cov_trace_pc #
> > # drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.c:43: return sprintf(buf, "%c macro 0x%02x\n", *buf, gbphy_dev->cport_desc->protocol_id);
> > movq -32(%rbx), %rax # MEM[(struct gbphy_device *)dev_7(D) + -40B].cport_desc, MEM[(struct gbphy_device *)dev_7(D) + -40B].cport_desc
> > # drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.c:43: return sprintf(buf, "%c macro 0x%02x\n", *buf, gbphy_dev->cport_desc->protocol_id);
> > movzbl 0(%rbp), %edx # *buf_9(D), *buf_9(D)
> > movq %rbp, %rdi # buf,
> > movq $.LC18, %rsi #,
> > movzbl 3(%rax), %ecx # _1->protocol_id, _1->protocol_id
> > call sprintf #
> > # drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.c:44: }
> > movl $13, %eax #,
> > popq %rbx #
> > popq %rbp #
> > jmp __x86_return_thunk
> > .size macro_protocol_id_show, .-macro_protocol_id_show
> >
> > Function version:
> >
> > .type extra_protocol_id_show, @function
> > extra_protocol_id_show:
> > endbr64
> > 1: call __fentry__
> > .section __mcount_loc, "a",@progbits
> > .quad 1b
> > .previous
> > pushq %rbp #
> > movq %rdx, %rbp # tmp96, buf
> > pushq %rbx #
> > # drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.c:47: {
> > movq %rdi, %rbx # tmp95, dev
> > # drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.c:50: return sprintf(buf, "extra 0x%02x %c\n", gbphy_dev->cport_desc->protocol_id, *buf);
> > call __sanitizer_cov_trace_pc #
> > # drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.c:50: return sprintf(buf, "extra 0x%02x %c\n", gbphy_dev->cport_desc->protocol_id, *buf);
> > movq -32(%rbx), %rax # MEM[(struct gbphy_device *)dev_8(D) + -40B].cport_desc, MEM[(struct gbphy_device *)dev_8(D) + -40B].cport_desc
> > # drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.c:50: return sprintf(buf, "extra 0x%02x %c\n", gbphy_dev->cport_desc->protocol_id, *buf);
> > movzbl 0(%rbp), %ecx # *buf_9(D), *buf_9(D)
> > movq %rbp, %rdi # buf,
> > movq $.LC19, %rsi #,
> > movzbl 3(%rax), %edx # _3->protocol_id, _3->protocol_id
> > call sprintf #
> > # drivers/staging/greybus/gbphy.c:51: }
> > movl $13, %eax #,
> > popq %rbx #
> > popq %rbp #
> > jmp __x86_return_thunk
> > .size extra_protocol_id_show, .-extra_protocol_id_show
> >
> > Both seem to access the memory directly. Maybe the example is too simple,
> > and the compiler is more likely to optimize aggressively?
>
> Nice, that shows that it is the same both ways as the compiler version
> you are using is smart enough
>
> Which compiler and version is this? Does it work the same for all of
> the supported versions we have to support (i.e. really old gcc?)
gcc (Ubuntu 9.4.0-1ubuntu1~20.04.1) 9.4.0
I got a similar result for gcc-5:
macro_protocol_id_show:
1: call __fentry__
.section __mcount_loc, "a",@progbits
.quad 1b
.previous
movq %rdx, %rax # buf, buf
movq -32(%rdi), %rdx # MEM[(struct gbphy_device *)dev_1(D) + -40B].cport_desc, MEM[(struct gbphy_device *)dev_1(D) + -40B].cport_desc
movq $.LC19, %rsi #,
movq %rax, %rdi # buf,
movzbl 3(%rdx), %ecx # _3->protocol_id, D.44996
movzbl (%rax), %edx # *buf_6(D), D.44996
call sprintf #
cltq
jmp __x86_return_thunk
.size macro_protocol_id_show, .-macro_protocol_id_show
.section .text.unlikely
.LCOLDE20:
.text
.LHOTE20:
.section .rodata.str1.1
.LC21:
.string "extra 0x%02x %c\n"
.section .text.unlikely
.LCOLDB22:
.text
.LHOTB22:
.p2align 6,,63
.globl extra_protocol_id_show
.type extra_protocol_id_show, @function
extra_protocol_id_show:
1: call __fentry__
.section __mcount_loc, "a",@progbits
.quad 1b
.previous
movq %rdx, %rax # buf, buf
movzbl (%rdx), %ecx # *buf_3(D), D.45003
movq -32(%rdi), %rdx # MEM[(struct gbphy_device *)dev_2(D) + -40B].cport_desc, MEM[(struct gbphy_device *)dev_2(D) + -40B].cport_desc
movq $.LC21, %rsi #,
movq %rax, %rdi # buf,
movzbl 3(%rdx), %edx # _6->protocol_id, D.45003
call sprintf #
cltq
jmp __x86_return_thunk
.size extra_protocol_id_show, .-extra_protocol_id_show
.section .text.unlikely
>
> For the most part, sysfs files are not on any sort of "fast path" so a
> function call is fine, but as I mentioned before, sometimes we are
> forced to move calls to container_of() to container_of_const() and that
> can not be an inline function, but must remain a macro :(
It seems that this is because there is not a unique return type, but not a
performance issue?
julia
