Re: [PATCH next V2] KVM: VMX: use __always_inline for is_td_vcpu and is_td

["Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>]

On Tue, 2025-05-27 at 15:47 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 12:34:07PM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > On Tue, 2025-05-27 at 13:07 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 04:44:37PM +0800, Edward Adam Davis wrote:
> > > > is_td() and is_td_vcpu() run in no instrumentation, so use __always_inline
> > > > to replace inline.
> > > > 
> > > > [1]
> > > > vmlinux.o: error: objtool: vmx_handle_nmi+0x47:
> > > >         call to is_td_vcpu.isra.0() leaves .noinstr.text section
> > > > 
> > > > Fixes: 7172c753c26a ("KVM: VMX: Move common fields of struct vcpu_{vmx,tdx} to a struct")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Edward Adam Davis <eadavis@qq.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > V1 -> V2: using __always_inline to replace noinstr
> > > > 
> > > >  arch/x86/kvm/vmx/common.h | 4 ++--
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/common.h b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/common.h
> > > > index 8f46a06e2c44..a0c5e8781c33 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/common.h
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/common.h
> > > > @@ -71,8 +71,8 @@ static __always_inline bool is_td_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > >  
> > > >  #else
> > > >  
> > > > -static inline bool is_td(struct kvm *kvm) { return false; }
> > > > -static inline bool is_td_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) { return false; }
> > > > +static __always_inline bool is_td(struct kvm *kvm) { return false; }
> > > > +static __always_inline bool is_td_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) { return false; }
> > > >  
> > > >  #endif
> > > 
> > > Right; this is the 'right' fix. Although the better fix would be for the
> > > compiler to not be stupid :-)
> 
> FWIW, the thing that typically happens is that the compiler first
> inserts instrumentation (think *SAN) into the trivial stub function and
> then figures its too big to inline.

This is helpful.  Thanks!

> 
> > Hi Peter,
> > 
> > Just out of curiosity, I have a related question.
> > 
> > I just learned there's a 'flatten' attribute ('__flatten' in linux kernel)
> > supported by both gcc and clang.  IIUC it forces all function calls inside one
> > function to be inlined if that function is annotated with this attribute.
> > 
> > However, it seems gcc and clang handles "recursive inlining" differently.  gcc
> > seems supports recursive inlining with flatten, but clang seems not.
> > 
> > This is the gcc doc [1] says, which explicitly tells recursive inlining is
> > supported IIUC:
> > 
> >   flatten
> >   
> >   Generally, inlining into a function is limited. For a function marked with 
> >   this attribute, every call inside this function is inlined including the calls
> >   such inlining introduces to the function (but not recursive calls to the 
> >   function itself), if possible.
> > 
> > And this is the clang doc [2] says, which doesn't say about recursive inlining:
> > 
> >   flatten
> > 
> >   The flatten attribute causes calls within the attributed function to be 
> >   inlined unless it is impossible to do so, for example if the body of the 
> >   callee is unavailable or if the callee has the noinline attribute.
> > 
> > Also, one "AI Overview" provided by google also says below:
> > 
> >   Compiler Behavior:
> >   While GCC supports recursive inlining with flatten, other compilers like  
> >   Clang might only perform a single level of inlining.
> > 
> > Just wondering whether you can happen to confirm this?
> > 
> > That also being said, if the __flatten could always be "recursive inlining", it
> > seems to me that __flatten would be a better annotation when we want some
> > function to be noinstr.  But if it's behaviour is compiler dependent, it seems
> > it's not a good idea to use it.
> > 
> > What's your opinion on this?
> 
> I am somewhat conflicted on this; using __flatten, while convenient,
> would take away the immediate insight into what gets pulled in. Having
> to explicitly mark functions with __always_inline is somewhat
> inconvenient, but at least you don't pull in stuff by accident.

Yeah, thanks anyway for the insight.