[PATCH 5/7] perf pmu: Move pmu__find_core_pmu() to pmus.c

James Clark james.clark at arm.com
Wed Sep 13 08:37:27 PDT 2023



On 13/09/2023 11:32, James Clark wrote:
> 
> 
> On 13/09/2023 11:20, James Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/09/2023 20:26, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>> Em Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 04:16:16PM +0100, James Clark escreveu:
>>>> pmu__find_core_pmu() more logically belongs in pmus.c because it
>>>> iterates over all PMUs, so move it to pmus.c
>>>>
>>>> At the same time rename it to perf_pmus__find_core_pmu() to match the
>>>> naming convention in this file.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: James Clark <james.clark at arm.com>
>>>
>>> So, this one is hitting this:
>>>
>>>   CC      /tmp/build/perf-tools-next/util/expr.o
>>> In file included from /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/list.h:7,
>>>                  from util/pmus.c:2:
>>> In function ‘perf_pmus__scan_core’,
>>>     inlined from ‘perf_pmus__find_core_pmu’ at util/pmus.c:601:16:
>>> /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/kernel.h:36:45: error: array subscript 0 is outside array bounds of ‘struct list_head[1]’ [-Werror=array-bounds]
>>>    36 |         const typeof(((type *)0)->member) * __mptr = (ptr);     \
>>>       |                                             ^~~~~~
>>> /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/list.h:352:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘container_of’
>>>   352 |         container_of(ptr, type, member)
>>>       |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/list.h:404:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘list_entry’
>>>   404 |         list_entry((pos)->member.next, typeof(*(pos)), member)
>>>       |         ^~~~~~~~~~
>>> /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/list.h:494:20: note: in expansion of macro ‘list_next_entry’
>>>   494 |         for (pos = list_next_entry(pos, member);                        \
>>>       |                    ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> util/pmus.c:274:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘list_for_each_entry_continue’
>>>   274 |         list_for_each_entry_continue(pmu, &core_pmus, list)
>>>       |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> util/pmus.c: In function ‘perf_pmus__find_core_pmu’:
>>> util/pmus.c:35:18: note: at offset -128 into object ‘core_pmus’ of size 16
>>>    35 | static LIST_HEAD(core_pmus);
>>>       |                  ^~~~~~~~~
>>> /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/list.h:23:26: note: in definition of macro ‘LIST_HEAD’
>>>    23 |         struct list_head name = LIST_HEAD_INIT(name)
>>>       |                          ^~~~
>>> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
>>> make[4]: *** [/var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/build/Makefile.build:97: /tmp/build/perf-tools-next/util/pmus.o] Error 1
>>> make[4]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
>>>   LD      /tmp/build/perf-tools-next/ui/browsers/perf-in.o
>>>
>>>
>>> So I applied up to 4/7
>>>
>>> Please continue from what will be in tmp.perf-tools-next in some
>>> jiffies.
>>>
>>> - Arnaldo
>>
>> I wasn't able to reproduce this on x86 or Arm, with either Clang or GCC.
>>
>> That was with this patch applied onto 999b81b907e on tmp.perf-tools-next
>> and a pretty normal "make WERROR=1" command.
>>
>> It seems like the 0 here is just to get the type rather than access
>> anything, if that's the 0 that the "array subscript 0" error is about,
>> so something seems a bit strange:
>>
>>> /var/home/acme/git/perf-tools-next/tools/include/linux/kernel.h:36:45:
>> error: array subscript 0 is outside array bounds of ‘struct
>> list_head[1]’ [-Werror=array-bounds]
>>>    36 |         const typeof(((type *)0)->member) * __mptr = (ptr);     \
> 
> Nevermind, I managed to reproduce it. With a DEBUG=1 build on x86 there
> is no error, it only happens with a non debug one.
> 
> I will look into it.

Sent a v3 with the fix. It's some kind of awkward semi-undefined
behavior in the linked list implementation that was always there but the
compiler could only see when I moved that function so it was all in one
compilation unit. It also required -O2 and I always build with DEBUG=1
so I missed it.



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list