lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Aug]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next v4] net: skb: prevent the split of kfree_skb_reason() by gcc
On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 11:28:46 +0800 menglong8.dong@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>
>
> Sometimes, gcc will optimize the function by spliting it to two or
> more functions. In this case, kfree_skb_reason() is splited to
> kfree_skb_reason and kfree_skb_reason.part.0. However, the
> function/tracepoint trace_kfree_skb() in it needs the return address
> of kfree_skb_reason().
>
> This split makes the call chains becomes:
> kfree_skb_reason() -> kfree_skb_reason.part.0 -> trace_kfree_skb()
>
> which makes the return address that passed to trace_kfree_skb() be
> kfree_skb().
>
> Therefore, prevent this kind of optimization to kfree_skb_reason() by
> making the optimize level to "O1". I think these should be better
> method instead of this "O1", but I can't figure it out......
>
> This optimization CAN happen, which depend on the behavior of gcc.
> I'm not able to reproduce it in the latest kernel code, but it happens
> in my kernel of version 5.4.119. Maybe the latest code already do someting
> that prevent this happen?
>
> Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <imagedong@tencent.com>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> Reported-by: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>

Sorry for a late and possibly off-topic chime in, is the compiler
splitting it because it thinks that skb_unref() is going to return
true? I don't think that's the likely case, so maybe we're better
off wrapping that skb_unref() in unlikely()?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-08-18 19:18    [W:0.110 / U:1.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site