From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: Daniel Gregory <daniel.gregory@bytedance.com>
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
Ruifeng Wang <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>,
dev@dpdk.org, Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@bytedance.com>,
Liang Ma <liangma@bytedance.com>,
feifei.wang2@arm.com, david.marchand@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] eal/arm: replace RTE_BUILD_BUG on non-constant
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 08:19:58 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240628081958.30fc1662@hermes.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240628100520.GA3779302@ste-uk-lab-gw>
On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 11:05:20 +0100
Daniel Gregory <daniel.gregory@bytedance.com> wrote:
> > > > The ARM implementation of rte_pause uses RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON to check
> > > > memorder, which is not constant. This causes compile errors when it is
> > > > enabled with RTE_ARM_USE_WFE. eg.
> > > >
> > > > ../lib/eal/arm/include/rte_pause_64.h: In function ‘rte_wait_until_equal_16’:
> > > > ../lib/eal/include/rte_common.h:530:56: error: expression in static assertion is not constant
> > > > 530 | #define RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) do { static_assert(!(condition), #condition); } while (0)
> > > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > ../lib/eal/arm/include/rte_pause_64.h:156:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON’
> > > > 156 | RTE_BUILD_BUG_ON(memorder != rte_memory_order_acquire &&
> > > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >
> > > > Fix the compile errors by replacing the check with an assert, like in
> > > > the generic implementation (lib/eal/include/generic/rte_pause.h).
> > >
> > > No, don't hide the problem.
> > >
> > > What code is calling these. Looks like a real bug. Could be behind layers of wrappers.
> >
> > I support Stephen's opinion.
> > Please look for the real issue.
>
> In DPDK, I have found 26 calls of rte_wait_until_equal_16, largely split
> between app/test-bbdev/test_bbdev_perf.c and app/test/test_timer.c, with
> a couple calls in lib/eal/include/rte_pflock.h and
> lib/eal/include/rte_ticketlock.h as well. 16 calls of
> rte_wait_until_equal_32, spread amongst various test cases
> (test_func_reentrancy.c test_mcslock.c, test_mempool_perf.c, ...), two
> drivers (drivers/event/opdl/opdl_ring.c and
> drivers/net/thunderx/nicvf_rxrx.c), lib/eal/common/eal_common_mcfg.c,
> lib/eal/include/generic/rte_spinlock.h, lib/ring/rte_ring_c11_pvt.h,
> lib/ring/rte_ring_generic_pvt.h and lib/eal/include/rte_mcslock.h. There
> is a single call to rte_wait_until_equal_64 in app/test/test_pmd_perf.c
>
> They all correctly use the primitives from rte_stdatomic.h
>
> As I discussed on another chain
> https://lore.kernel.org/dpdk-dev/20240509110251.GA3795959@ste-uk-lab-gw/
> from what I've seen, it seems that neither Clang nor GCC allow for
> static checks on the parameters of inline functions. For instance, the
> following does not compile:
>
> static inline __attribute__((always_inline)) int
> fn(int val)
> {
> _Static_assert(val == 0, "val nonzero");
> return 0;
> }
>
> int main(void) {
> return fn(0);
> }
>
> ( https://godbolt.org/z/TrfWqYoGo )
>
> With the same "expression in static assertion is not constant" error
> that I get when cross-compiling DPDK for ARM with WFE enabled on main:
This is unexpected, but I can validate that it works that way.
Maybe because of combination of how inlining works and how the
static asserts are evaluated.
It does work if fn() is a macro
#define fn(val) ({ static_assert(val == 0, "val nonzero"); 0; })
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-28 15:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-02 14:21 [PATCH] " Daniel Gregory
2024-05-02 16:20 ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-05-02 17:44 ` Daniel Gregory
2024-05-02 18:27 ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-05-02 21:48 ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-05-03 9:46 ` Daniel Gregory
2024-05-04 0:56 ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-05-09 11:02 ` Daniel Gregory
2024-05-03 13:32 ` David Marchand
2024-05-03 14:21 ` Daniel Gregory
2024-05-03 18:27 ` [PATCH v2] " Daniel Gregory
2024-05-03 18:30 ` Daniel Gregory
2024-05-04 0:59 ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-06-27 15:08 ` Thomas Monjalon
2024-06-28 10:05 ` Daniel Gregory
2024-06-28 15:19 ` Stephen Hemminger [this message]
2024-05-06 9:30 ` Ruifeng Wang
2024-05-11 17:00 ` Wathsala Wathawana Vithanage
2024-10-04 17:47 ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-10-08 9:47 ` Morten Brørup
2024-05-04 1:02 ` [PATCH] " Stephen Hemminger
2024-05-09 11:11 ` Daniel Gregory
2024-05-09 16:47 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2024-05-11 16:48 ` Wathsala Wathawana Vithanage
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=20240628081958.30fc1662@hermes.local \
--to=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=daniel.gregory@bytedance.com \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=feifei.wang2@arm.com \
--cc=liangma@bytedance.com \
--cc=punit.agrawal@bytedance.com \
--cc=ruifeng.wang@arm.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/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 NNTP newsgroup(s).