[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/hwmon: Fix a build error used with clang compiler
Gwan-gyeong Mun
gwan-gyeong.mun at intel.com
Wed Nov 2 10:41:42 UTC 2022
On 11/2/22 8:32 AM, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> Quoting Jani Nikula (2022-10-28 11:46:21)
>> On Fri, 28 Oct 2022, Gwan-gyeong Mun <gwan-gyeong.mun at intel.com> wrote:
>>> Resend, because some content was accidentally omitted from the previous
>>> reply.
>>> Please ignore the previous email.
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I should have written the original commit message more accurately, but
>>> it seems that it was written inaccurately.
>>>
>>> If the FIELD_PREP macro is expanded, the following macros are used.
>>>
>>> #define FIELD_PREP(_mask, _val) \
>>> ({ \
>>> __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0ULL, _val, "FIELD_PREP: "); \
>>> ((typeof(_mask))(_val) << __bf_shf(_mask)) & (_mask); \
>>> })
>>>
>>>
>>> #define __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _reg, _val, _pfx) \
>>> ({ \
>>> BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(!__builtin_constant_p(_mask), \
>>> _pfx "mask is not constant"); \
>>> BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG((_mask) == 0, _pfx "mask is zero"); \
>>> BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__builtin_constant_p(_val) ? \
>>> ~((_mask) >> __bf_shf(_mask)) & (_val) : 0, \
>>> _pfx "value too large for the field"); \
>>> BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__bf_cast_unsigned(_mask, _mask) > \
>>> __bf_cast_unsigned(_reg, ~0ull), \
>>> _pfx "type of reg too small for mask"); \
>>> __BUILD_BUG_ON_NOT_POWER_OF_2((_mask) + \
>>> (1ULL << __bf_shf(_mask))); \
>>> })
>>>
>>> Among them, a build error is generated by the lower part of the
>>> __BF_FIELD_CHECK() macro.
>>>
>>> BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__bf_cast_unsigned(_mask, _mask) > \
>>> __bf_cast_unsigned(_reg, ~0ull), \
>>> _pfx "type of reg too small for mask"); \
>>>
>>>
>>> Here, if you apply an argument to this macro, it will look like the
>>> following.
>>>
>>> __bf_cast_unsigned(field_msk, field_msk) > __bf_cast_unsigned(0ULL, ~0ull)
>>>
>>> The result is always false because an unsigned int value of type
>>> field_msk is not always greater than the maximum value of unsigned long
>>> long .
>>> So, a build error occurs due to the following part of the clang compiler
>>> option.
>>>
>>> [-Werror,-Wtautological-constant-out-of-range-compare]
>>>
>>> You can simply override this warning in Clang by adding the build option
>>> below, but this seems like a bad attempt
>>>
>>> i915/Makefile
>>> CFLAGS_i915_hwmon.o += -Wno-tautological-constant-out-of-range-compare
>>>
>>> The easiest way to solve this is to use a constant value, not a
>>> variable, as an argument to FIELD_PREP.
>>>
>>> And since the REG_FIELD_PREP() macro suggested by Jani requires a const
>>> expression as the first argument, it cannot be changed with this macro
>>> alone in the existing code, it must be changed to input a constant value
>>> as shown below.
>>
>> We've added REG_FIELD_PREP() precisely to avoid the problems with the
>> types and ranges, as we want it to operate on u32. It also uses
>> __is_constexpr() to avoid dependencies on compiler implementation and
>> optimizations.
>>
>> Please use REG_FIELD_PREP() and a constant value. Maybe rethink the
>> interface if needed.
>
> Ashutosh and GG, can we get a fix for this merged ASAP. It's currently
> blocking the drm-intel-gt-next pull request.
>
> Regards, Joonas
>
Hi Joonas,
As a workaround patch, this patch[1] was reviewed by Ashutoshr and acked
by Jani.
[1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/509248/?series=110094&rev=5
Br,
G.G.
>>
>> BR,
>> Jani.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
>>> index 08c921421a5f..abb3a194c548 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
>>> @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ hwm_field_read_and_scale(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat,
>>> i915_reg_t rgadr,
>>>
>>> static void
>>> hwm_field_scale_and_write(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, i915_reg_t rgadr,
>>> - const u32 field_msk, int nshift,
>>> + int nshift,
>>> unsigned int scale_factor, long lval)
>>> {
>>> u32 nval;
>>> @@ -111,8 +111,8 @@ hwm_field_scale_and_write(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat,
>>> i915_reg_t rgadr,
>>> /* Computation in 64-bits to avoid overflow. Round to nearest. */
>>> nval = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)lval << nshift, scale_factor);
>>>
>>> - bits_to_clear = field_msk;
>>> - bits_to_set = REG_FIELD_PREP(field_msk, nval);
>>> + bits_to_clear = PKG_PWR_LIM_1;
>>> + bits_to_set = REG_FIELD_PREP(PKG_PWR_LIM_1, nval);
>>>
>>> hwm_locked_with_pm_intel_uncore_rmw(ddat, rgadr,
>>> bits_to_clear, bits_to_set);
>>> @@ -406,7 +406,6 @@ hwm_power_write(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, u32 attr,
>>> int chan, long val)
>>> case hwmon_power_max:
>>> hwm_field_scale_and_write(ddat,
>>> hwmon->rg.pkg_rapl_limit,
>>> - PKG_PWR_LIM_1,
>>> hwmon->scl_shift_power,
>>> SF_POWER, val);
>>> return 0;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In addition, if there is no build problem regardless of the size of the
>>> type as the first argument in FIELD_PREP, it is possible through the
>>> following modification.
>>> (Since this modification modifies include/linux/bitfield.h , I will send
>>> it as a separate patch.
>>> )
>>>
>>> However, it seems that we need to have Jani's confirm whether it is okay
>>> to use FIELD_PREP() instead of REG_FIELD_PREP() which is forced to u32
>>> return type in i915.
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/bitfield.h b/include/linux/bitfield.h
>>> index c9be1657f03d..6e96799b6f38 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/bitfield.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/bitfield.h
>>> @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
>>>
>>> #include <linux/build_bug.h>
>>> #include <asm/byteorder.h>
>>> -
>>> +#include <linux/overflow.h>
>>> /*
>>> * Bitfield access macros
>>> *
>>> @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@
>>> ~((_mask) >> __bf_shf(_mask)) & (_val)
>>> : 0, \
>>> _pfx "value too large for the field"); \
>>> BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__bf_cast_unsigned(_mask, _mask) > \
>>> - __bf_cast_unsigned(_reg, ~0ull), \
>>> + __bf_cast_unsigned(_reg,
>>> type_max(__unsigned_scalar_typeof(_reg))), \
>>> _pfx "type of reg too small for mask"); \
>>> __BUILD_BUG_ON_NOT_POWER_OF_2((_mask) + \
>>> (1ULL << __bf_shf(_mask))); \
>>> @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@
>>> */
>>> #define FIELD_MAX(_mask) \
>>> ({ \
>>> - __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0ULL, 0ULL, "FIELD_MAX: "); \
>>> + __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask,
>>> type_min(__unsigned_scalar_typeof(_mask)),
>>> type_min(__unsigned_scalar_typeof(_mask)), "FIELD_MAX: "); \
>>> (typeof(_mask))((_mask) >> __bf_shf(_mask)); \
>>> })
>>>
>>> @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@
>>> */
>>> #define FIELD_FIT(_mask, _val) \
>>> ({ \
>>> - __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0ULL, 0ULL, "FIELD_FIT: "); \
>>> + __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask,
>>> type_min(__unsigned_scalar_typeof(_mask)),
>>> type_min(__unsigned_scalar_typeof(_val)), "FIELD_FIT: "); \
>>> !((((typeof(_mask))_val) << __bf_shf(_mask)) & ~(_mask)); \
>>> })
>>>
>>> @@ -111,7 +111,7 @@
>>> */
>>> #define FIELD_PREP(_mask, _val)
>>> \
>>> ({ \
>>> - __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, 0ULL, _val, "FIELD_PREP: "); \
>>> + __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask,
>>> type_min(__unsigned_scalar_typeof(_mask)), _val, "FIELD_PREP: "); \
>>> ((typeof(_mask))(_val) << __bf_shf(_mask)) & (_mask); \
>>> })
>>>
>>> @@ -125,7 +125,7 @@
>>> */
>>> #define FIELD_GET(_mask, _reg) \
>>> ({ \
>>> - __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _reg, 0U, "FIELD_GET: "); \
>>> + __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _reg,
>>> type_min(__unsigned_scalar_typeof(_reg)), "FIELD_GET: "); \
>>> (typeof(_mask))(((_reg) & (_mask)) >> __bf_shf(_mask)); \
>>> })
>>>
>>>
>>> Br,
>>>
>>> G.G.
>>>
>>> On 10/27/22 9:32 PM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 10:16:47 -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Nick,
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, I can repro now.
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't detangled the macro soup, but I noticed:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. FIELD_PREP is defined in include/linux/bitfield.h which has the
>>>>> following comment:
>>>>> 18 * Mask must be a compilation time constant.
>>>>
>>>> I had comments about this here:
>>>>
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/intel-gfx/87ilk7pwrw.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com/
>>>>
>>>> The relevant part being:
>>>>
>>>> ---- {quote} ----
>>>>>>> ./include/linux/bitfield.h:71:53: note: expanded from macro '__BF_FIELD_CHECK'
>>>>>>> BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__bf_cast_unsigned(_mask, _mask) > \
>>>>
>>>> So clang seems to break here at this line in __BF_FIELD_CHECK (note ~0ull
>>>> also occurs here):
>>>>
>>>> BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__bf_cast_unsigned(_mask, _mask) > \
>>>> __bf_cast_unsigned(_reg, ~0ull), \
>>>> _pfx "type of reg too small for mask"); \
>>>>
>>>> So it goes through previous checks including the "mask is not constant"
>>>> check. As Nick Desaulniers mentions "__builtin_constant_p is evaluated
>>>> after most optimizations have run" so by that time both compilers (gcc and
>>>> clang) have figured out that even though _mask is coming in as function
>>>> argument it is really the constant below:
>>>>
>>>> #define PKG_PWR_LIM_1 REG_GENMASK(14, 0)
>>>>
>>>> But it is not clear why clang chokes on this "type of reg too small for
>>>> mask" check (and gcc doesn't) since everything is u32.
>>>> ---- {end quote} ----
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. hwm_field_scale_and_write only has one callsite.
>>>>>
>>>>> The following patch works:
>>>>
>>>> If we need to fix it at our end yes we can come up with one of these
>>>> patches. But we were hoping someone from clang/llvm can comment about the
>>>> "type of reg too small for mask" stuff. If this is something which needs to
>>>> be fixed in clang/llvm we probably don't want to hide the issue.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ```
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
>>>>> index 9e9781493025..6ac29d90b92a 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
>>>>> @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ hwm_field_read_and_scale(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat,
>>>>> i915_reg_t rgadr,
>>>>>
>>>>> static void
>>>>> hwm_field_scale_and_write(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, i915_reg_t rgadr,
>>>>> - u32 field_msk, int nshift,
>>>>> + int nshift,
>>>>> unsigned int scale_factor, long lval)
>>>>> {
>>>>> u32 nval;
>>>>> @@ -111,8 +111,8 @@ hwm_field_scale_and_write(struct hwm_drvdata
>>>>> *ddat, i915_reg_t rgadr,
>>>>> /* Computation in 64-bits to avoid overflow. Round to nearest. */
>>>>> nval = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST_ULL((u64)lval << nshift, scale_factor);
>>>>>
>>>>> - bits_to_clear = field_msk;
>>>>> - bits_to_set = FIELD_PREP(field_msk, nval);
>>>>> + bits_to_clear = PKG_PWR_LIM_1;
>>>>> + bits_to_set = FIELD_PREP(PKG_PWR_LIM_1, nval);
>>>>>
>>>>> hwm_locked_with_pm_intel_uncore_rmw(ddat, rgadr,
>>>>> bits_to_clear, bits_to_set);
>>>>> @@ -406,7 +406,6 @@ hwm_power_write(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, u32
>>>>> attr, int chan, long val)
>>>>> case hwmon_power_max:
>>>>> hwm_field_scale_and_write(ddat,
>>>>> hwmon->rg.pkg_rapl_limit,
>>>>> - PKG_PWR_LIM_1,
>>>>> hwmon->scl_shift_power,
>>>>> SF_POWER, val);
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> ```
>>>>> Though I'm not sure if you're planning to add further callsites of
>>>>> hwm_field_scale_and_write with different field_masks?
>>>>
>>>> I have reasons for keeping it this way, it's there in the link above if you
>>>> are interested.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Alternatively, (without the above diff),
>>>>>
>>>>> ```
>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/bitfield.h b/include/linux/bitfield.h
>>>>> index c9be1657f03d..6f40f12bcf89 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/linux/bitfield.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/bitfield.h
>>>>> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
>>>>> #define _LINUX_BITFIELD_H
>>>>>
>>>>> #include <linux/build_bug.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/const.h>
>>>>> #include <asm/byteorder.h>
>>>>>
>>>>> /*
>>>>> @@ -62,7 +63,7 @@
>>>>>
>>>>> #define __BF_FIELD_CHECK(_mask, _reg, _val, _pfx) \
>>>>> ({ \
>>>>> - BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(!__builtin_constant_p(_mask), \
>>>>> + BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(!__is_constexpr(_mask), \
>>>>> _pfx "mask is not constant"); \
>>>>> BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG((_mask) == 0, _pfx "mask is zero"); \
>>>>> BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(__builtin_constant_p(_val) ? \
>>>>> ```
>>>>> will produce:
>>>>> error: call to __compiletime_assert_407 declared with 'error'
>>>>> attribute: FIELD_PREP: mask is not constant
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't tested if that change is also feasible (on top of fixing
>>>>> this specific instance), but I think it might help avoid more of these
>>>>> subtleties wrt. __builtin_constant_p that depende heavily on compiler,
>>>>> compiler version, optimization level.
>>>>
>>>> Not disagreeing, can do something here if needed.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> --
>>>> Ashutosh
>>
>> --
>> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list