public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "torvalds@linux-foundation.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/108552] Linux i386 kernel 5.14 memory corruption for pre_compound_page() when gcov is enabled
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2023 08:06:29 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-108552-4-gQI4TxceCr@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-108552-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108552

--- Comment #43 from Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #42)
> 
> I think if we want to avoid doing optimizations on gcov counters we should
> make them volatile. 

Honestly, that sounds like the cleanest and safest option to me.

That said, with the gcov counters apparently also being 64-bit, I suspect it
will create some truly horrid code generation.

Presumably you'd end up getting a lot of load-load-add-adc-store-store
instruction patterns, which is not just six instructions when just two should
do - it also uses up two registers.

So while it sounds like the simplest and safest model, maybe it just makes code
generation too unbearably bad?

Maybe nobody who uses gcov would care. But I suspect it might be quite the big
performance regression, to the point where even people who thought they don't
care will go "that's a bit much".

I wonder if there is some half-way solution that would allow at least a
load-add-store-load-adc-store instruction sequence, which would then mean (a)
one less register wasted and (b) potentially allow some peephole optimization
turning it into just a addmem-adcmem instruction pair.

Turning just the one of the memops into a volatile access might be enough (eg
just the load, but not the store?)

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-01-30  8:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-01-26  8:00 [Bug c/108552] New: " feng.tang at intel dot com
2023-01-26  8:01 ` [Bug c/108552] " feng.tang at intel dot com
2023-01-26  8:02 ` [Bug target/108552] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-26  8:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-26  8:13 ` feng.tang at intel dot com
2023-01-26  8:19 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-26 11:35 ` feng.tang at intel dot com
2023-01-26 11:37 ` feng.tang at intel dot com
2023-01-26 11:39 ` feng.tang at intel dot com
2023-01-26 16:03 ` feng.tang at intel dot com
2023-01-26 16:07 ` feng.tang at intel dot com
2023-01-26 19:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-26 19:22 ` torvalds@linux-foundation.org
2023-01-27  9:52 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2023-01-27 10:47 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2023-01-27 10:56 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2023-01-27 12:23 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2023-01-27 12:29 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2023-01-27 12:31 ` [Bug tree-optimization/108552] " ubizjak at gmail dot com
2023-01-27 12:51 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2023-01-27 12:52 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2023-01-27 13:17 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-27 13:40 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2023-01-27 14:14 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-27 14:59 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-27 15:01 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-27 15:13 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-27 15:15 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-27 15:18 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-27 15:20 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-27 17:00 ` torvalds@linux-foundation.org
2023-01-27 17:05 ` torvalds@linux-foundation.org
2023-01-27 17:15 ` torvalds@linux-foundation.org
2023-01-27 17:19 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-27 17:29 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-27 22:30 ` vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-28 14:20 ` feng.tang at intel dot com
2023-01-28 14:27 ` feng.tang at intel dot com
2023-01-28 14:29 ` feng.tang at intel dot com
2023-01-28 23:40 ` hubicka at ucw dot cz
2023-01-29 10:08 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-30  7:05 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-30  7:09 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-30  8:06 ` torvalds@linux-foundation.org [this message]
2023-01-30  8:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-30  8:44 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-30  8:46 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2023-01-30 18:54 ` torvalds@linux-foundation.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-108552-4-gQI4TxceCr@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).