lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] powerpc/32: Don't use a struct based type for pte_t
From
Date


Le 18/09/2021 à 05:26, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> writes:
>> Long time ago we had a config item called STRICT_MM_TYPECHECKS
>> to build the kernel with pte_t defined as a structure in order
>> to perform additional build checks or build it with pte_t
>> defined as a simple type in order to get simpler generated code.
>>
>> Commit 670eea924198 ("powerpc/mm: Always use STRICT_MM_TYPECHECKS")
>> made the struct based definition the only one, considering that the
>> generated code was similar in both cases.
>>
>> That's right on ppc64 because the ABI is such that the content of a
>> struct having a single simple type element is passed as register,
>> but on ppc32 such a structure is passed via the stack like any
>> structure.
>>
>> Simple test function:
>>
>> pte_t test(pte_t pte)
>> {
>> return pte;
>> }
>>
>> Before this patch we get
>>
>> c00108ec <test>:
>> c00108ec: 81 24 00 00 lwz r9,0(r4)
>> c00108f0: 91 23 00 00 stw r9,0(r3)
>> c00108f4: 4e 80 00 20 blr
>>
>> So, for PPC32, restore the simple type behaviour we got before
>> commit 670eea924198, but instead of adding a config option to
>> activate type check, do it when __CHECKER__ is set so that type
>> checking is performed by 'sparse' and provides feedback like:
>>
>> arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c:466:16: warning: incorrect type in return expression (different base types)
>> arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c:466:16: expected unsigned long
>> arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable.c:466:16: got struct pte_t [usertype] x
>
> OK that's a good trade off.
>
> One question below ...
>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgtable-types.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgtable-types.h
>> index d11b4c61d686..c60199fc6fa6 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgtable-types.h
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgtable-types.h
>> @@ -5,14 +5,26 @@
>> /* PTE level */
>> #if defined(CONFIG_PPC_8xx) && defined(CONFIG_PPC_16K_PAGES)
>> typedef struct { pte_basic_t pte, pte1, pte2, pte3; } pte_t;
>> -#else
>> +#elif defined(__CHECKER__) || !defined(CONFIG_PPC32)
>
> It would be nicer if this logic was in Kconfig.
>
> eg. restore config STRICT_MM_TYPECHECKS but make it always enabled for
> 64-bit, and depend on CHECKER for 32-bit.
>
> The only thing is I'm not sure if we can test __CHECKER__ in Kconfig?


I think Kconfig doesn't see __CHECKER__, otherwise it would mean that a
build may get different whether you build with C=1/2 or not.

__CHECKER__ is a define added by sparse when doing the CHECK on a per
object basis.

What I can do is to add:

#if defined(__CHECKER__) || !defined(CONFIG_PPC32)
#define STRICT_MM_TYPECHECKS
#endif

Christophe

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-09-18 10:39    [W:0.091 / U:1.468 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site