[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210304192447.GT29191@gate.crashing.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 13:24:47 -0600
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] powerpc: Include running function as first entry in save_stack_trace() and friends
On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 09:54:44AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 9:42 AM Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com> wrote:
> include/linux/compiler.h:246:
> prevent_tail_call_optimization
>
> commit a9a3ed1eff36 ("x86: Fix early boot crash on gcc-10, third try")
That is much heavier than needed (an mb()). You can just put an empty
inline asm after a call before a return, and that call cannot be
optimised to a sibling call: (the end of a function is an implicit
return:)
Instead of:
void g(void);
void f(int x)
if (x)
g();
}
Do:
void g(void);
void f(int x)
if (x)
g();
asm("");
}
This costs no extra instructions, and certainly not something as heavy
as an mb()! It works without the "if" as well, of course, but with it
it is a more interesting example of a tail call.
Segher
Powered by blists - more mailing lists