public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.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 08:44:46 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-108552-4-jnngyZBoYn@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 #45 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Linus Torvalds from comment #43)
> (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?)

It might be possible to introduce something like a __volatile_inc () which
implements a somewhat relaxed "volatile".

For user code

volatile long long x;
void foo () { x++; }

emitting inc + adc with memory operands is only "incorrect" in re-ordering
the subword reads with the subword writes, the reads and writes still happen
architecturally ...

That said, the coverage code could make this re-ordering explicit for
32bit with some conditional code (add-with-overflow) that eventually
combines back nicely even with volatile ...

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-01-30  8:44 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
2023-01-30  8:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-30  8:44 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
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-jnngyZBoYn@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).