Re: [paulmck-rcu:frederic.2023.12.08a 29/37] fs/btrfs/transaction.c:496:6: error: call to '__compiletime_assert_329' declared with 'error' attribute: Need native word sized stores/loads for atomicity.

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 01:53:58PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2023 at 07:51:30AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 09, 2023 at 06:20:37PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > tree:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git frederic.2023.12.08a
> > > head:   37843b5f561a08ae899fb791eeeb5abd992eabe2
> > > commit: 7dd87072d40809e26503f04b79d63290288dbbac [29/37] btrfs: Adjust ->last_trans ordering in btrfs_record_root_in_trans()
> > > config: riscv-rv32_defconfig (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20231209/202312091837.cKaPw0Tf-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/config)
> > > compiler: clang version 17.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git 4a5ac14ee968ff0ad5d2cc1ffa0299048db4c88a)
> > > reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20231209/202312091837.cKaPw0Tf-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/reproduce)
> > > 
> > > If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
> > > the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
> > > | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202312091837.cKaPw0Tf-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/
> > > 
> > > All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
> > > 
> > >    warning: unknown warning option '-Wpacked-not-aligned'; did you mean '-Wpacked-non-pod'? [-Wunknown-warning-option]
> > >    warning: unknown warning option '-Wstringop-truncation'; did you mean '-Wstring-concatenation'? [-Wunknown-warning-option]
> > >    warning: unknown warning option '-Wmaybe-uninitialized'; did you mean '-Wuninitialized'? [-Wunknown-warning-option]
> > > >> fs/btrfs/transaction.c:496:6: error: call to '__compiletime_assert_329' declared with 'error' attribute: Need native word sized stores/loads for atomicity.
> > >      496 |         if (smp_load_acquire(&root->last_trans) == trans->transid && /* ^^^ */
> > >          |             ^
> > 
> > Ooooh!!!  :-/
> > 
> > From what I can see, the current code can tear this load on 32-bit
> > systems, which can result in bad comparisons and then in failure to wait
> > for a partially complete transaction.
> > 
> > So is btrfs actually supported on 32-bit systems?  If not, would the
> > following patch be appropriate?
> 
> There are limitations on 32bit systems, eg. due to shorter inode numbers
> (ino_t is unsigned long) and that radix-tree/xarray does support only
> unsigned long keys, while we have 64bit identifiers for inodes or tree
> roots.
> 
> So far we support that and dropping it completely is I think a big deal,
> like with any possibly used feature. What I've seen there are NAS boxes
> with low power ARM that are 32bit.
> 
> > If btrfs is to be supported on 32-bit systems, from what I can see some
> > major surgery is required, even if a 32-bit counter is wrap-safe for
> > this particular type of transaction.  (But SSDs?  In-memory btrfs
> > filesystems?)
> 
> We won't probably do any major surgery to support 32bit systems.

Got it, and thank you for the background!  My takeaway is that 32-bit
BTRFS must work in the common case, but might have issues on some
workloads, for example, running out of inode numbers or load tearing.

> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/Kconfig b/fs/btrfs/Kconfig
> > index 4fb925e8c981..4d56158c34f9 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/Kconfig
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/Kconfig
> > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ config BTRFS_FS
> >  	select RAID6_PQ
> >  	select XOR_BLOCKS
> >  	depends on PAGE_SIZE_LESS_THAN_256KB
> > +	depends on 64BIT
> 
> Can we keep the current inefficient smp_* barriers instead of dropping
> the whole 32bit support as an alternative. If the smp_load_acquire are
> better but not strictly necessary for the correctness (from the barriers
> POV) I'd suggest to leave it as-is. We can put comments in case somebody
> wants to optimize it in the future again.

We still have the barrier placement issue, given that smp_rmb() enforces
only the ordering of earlier and later loads, correct?  Or am I missing
some other ordering constraint that makes all that work?

But I can make each of the current patch's smp_load_acquire() call instead
be be a READ_ONCE() followed by an smp_rmb(), the test_bit_acquire()
call be test_bit() followed by smp_rmb(), and the smp_store_release()
call be an smp_wmb() followed by a WRITE_ONCE().  This provides the needed
ordering, bullet-proofs the 64-bit code against compilers, but works on
32-bit systems.  For example, on a 32-bit system the 64-bit READ_ONCE()
and WRITE_ONCE() might still be compiled as a pair of 32-bit memory
accesses, but they will both be guaranteed to be single memory accesses
on 64-bit systems.

Would that work for you guys?

							Thanx, Paul