Re: [PATCH v4] Makefile.compiler: replace cc-ifversion with compiler-specific macros

[Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)]

Hi, Thorsten here, the Linux kernel's regression tracker. Top-posting
for once, to make this easily accessible to everyone.

Shreeya Patel, Masahiro Yamada: what's the status of this? Was any
progress made to address this? Or is this maybe (accidentally?) fixed
with 6.5-rc1?

Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
--
Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking:
https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr
If I did something stupid, please tell me, as explained on that page.

#regzbot poke

On 20.06.23 06:19, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 7:10 PM Shreeya Patel
> <shreeya.patel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 24/05/23 02:57, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 3:27 AM Shreeya Patel
>>> <shreeya.patel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Hi Nick and Masahiro,
>>>>
>>>> On 23/05/23 01:22, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 9:52 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:09:34PM +0200, Ricardo Cañuelo wrote:
>>>>>>> On vie, may 19 2023 at 08:57:24, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>> It could be; if the link order was changed, it's possible that this
>>>>>>>> target may be hitting something along the lines of:
>>>>>>>> https://isocpp.org/wiki/faq/ctors#static-init-order i.e. the "static
>>>>>>>> initialization order fiasco"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm struggling to think of how this appears in C codebases, but I
>>>>>>>> swear years ago I had a discussion with GKH (maybe?) about this. I
>>>>>>>> think I was playing with converting Kbuild to use Ninja rather than
>>>>>>>> Make; the resulting kernel image wouldn't boot because I had modified
>>>>>>>> the order the object files were linked in.  If you were to randomly
>>>>>>>> shuffle the object files in the kernel, I recall some hazard that may
>>>>>>>> prevent boot.
>>>>>>> I thought that was specifically a C++ problem? But then again, the
>>>>>>> kernel docs explicitly say that the ordering of obj-y goals in kbuild is
>>>>>>> significant in some instances [1]:
>>>>>> Yes, it matters, you can not change it.  If you do, systems will break.
>>>>>> It is the only way we have of properly ordering our init calls within
>>>>>> the same "level".
>>>>> Ah, right it was the initcall ordering. Thanks for the reminder.
>>>>>
>>>>> (There's a joke in there similar to the use of regexes to solve a
>>>>> problem resulting in two new problems; initcalls have levels for
>>>>> ordering, but we still have (unexpressed) dependencies between calls
>>>>> of the same level; brittle!).
>>>>>
>>>>> +Maksim, since that might be relevant info for the BOLT+Kernel work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ricardo,
>>>>> https://elinux.org/images/e/e8/2020_ELCE_initcalls_myjosserand.pdf
>>>>> mentions that there's a kernel command line param `initcall_debug`.
>>>>> Perhaps that can be used to see if
>>>>> 5750121ae7382ebac8d47ce6d68012d6cd1d7926 somehow changed initcall
>>>>> ordering, resulting in a config that cannot boot?
>>>>
>>>> Here are the links to Lava jobs ran with initcall_debug added to the
>>>> kernel command line.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Where regression happens (5750121ae7382ebac8d47ce6d68012d6cd1d7926)
>>>> https://lava.collabora.dev/scheduler/job/10417706
>>>> <https://lava.collabora.dev/scheduler/job/10417706>
>>>>
>>>> 2. With a revert of the commit 5750121ae7382ebac8d47ce6d68012d6cd1d7926
>>>> https://lava.collabora.dev/scheduler/job/10418012
>>>> <https://lava.collabora.dev/scheduler/job/10418012>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Yeah, I can see a diff in the initcall ordering as a result of
>>> commit 5750121ae738 ("kbuild: list sub-directories in ./Kbuild")
>>>
>>> https://gist.github.com/nickdesaulniers/c09db256e42ad06b90842a4bb85cc0f4
>>>
>>> Not just different orderings, but some initcalls seem unique to the
>>> before vs. after, which is troubling. (example init_events and
>>> init_fs_sysctls respectively)
>>>
>>> That isn't conclusive evidence that changes to initcall ordering are
>>> to blame, but I suspect confirming that precisely to be very very time
>>> consuming.
>>>
>>> Masahiro, what are your thoughts on reverting 5750121ae738? There are
>>> conflicts in Kbuild and Makefile when reverting 5750121ae738 on
>>> mainline.
>>
>> I'm not sure if you followed the conversation but we are still seeing
>> this regression with the latest kernel builds and would like to know if
>> you plan to revert 5750121ae738?
> 
> 
> Reverting 5750121ae738 does not solve the issue
> because the issue happens even before 5750121ae738.
> multi_v7_defconfig + debug.config + CONFIG_MODULES=n
> fails to boot in the same way.
> 
> The revert would hide the issue on a particular build setup.
> 
> 
> I submitted a patch to more pin-point the issue.
> Let's see how it goes.
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZJEni98knMMkU%2Fcl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#t
> 
> 
> (BTW, the initcall order is unrelated)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Shreeya Patel
>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Shreeya Patel
>>>>
>>>
> 
> --
> Best Regards
> Masahiro Yamada
> 
>