lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: objtool warning for next-20221118
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 09:35:17AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 09:16:05PM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> > It's complaining about an unreachable instruction after a call to
> > arch_cpu_idle_dead(). In this case objtool detects the fact
> > arch_cpu_idle_dead() doesn't return due to its call to the
> > non-CONFIG_SMP version of play_dead(). But GCC has no way of detecting
> > that because the caller is in another translation unit.
> >
> > As far as I can tell, that function should never return. Though it
> > seems to have some dubious semantics (see xen_pv_play_dead() for
> > example, which *does* seem to return?). I'm thinking it would be an
> > improvement to enforce that noreturn behavior across all arches and
> > platforms, sprinkling __noreturn and BUG() on arch_cpu_idle_dead() and
> > maybe some of it callees, where needed.
> >
> > Peter, what do you think? I could attempt a patch.
>
> I'm thinking the Xen case makes all this really rather difficult :/
>
> While normally a CPU is brought up through a trampoline, Xen seems to
> have implemented it by simply returning from play_dead(), and afaict
> that is actually a valid way to go about doing it.

o_O

How the @#$% is that a valid way of doing it? Why not just do it the
normal way?

> Perhaps the best way would be to stick a REACHABLE annotation in
> arch_cpu_idle_dead() or something?

It what universe would we expect a function named "play_dead" to instead
finish bringing the CPU up and return?

That's just awful... I don't see anything "valid" about it.

--
Josh

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-11-23 02:25    [W:0.094 / U:0.448 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site