lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:08:11 -0500
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] ext4: Use trace condition for ext4_mballoc tracepoints

Doing an if statement to test some condition to know if we should
trigger a tracepoint is pointless when tracing is disabled. This just
adds overhead and wastes a branch prediction. This is why the
TRACE_EVENT_CONDITION() was created. It places the check inside the jump
label so that the branch does not happen unless tracing is enabled.

That is, instead of doing:

	if (em)
		trace_btrfs_get_extent(root, em);

Which is basically this:

	if (em)
		if (static_key(trace_btrfs_get_extent)) {


Using a TRACE_EVENT_CONDITION() we can just do:

	trace_btrfs_get_extent(root, em);

And the condition trace event will do:

	if (static_key(trace_btrfs_get_extent)) {
		if (em) {
			...

The static key is a non conditional jump (or nop) that is faster than
having to check if em is NULL or not.

Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists