linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/10] jump label: introduce very

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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:20:56 -0500
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	davem@...emloft.net, ddaney.cavm@...il.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] jump label: introduce very_[un]likely + cleanups
	+ docs

* Steven Rostedt (rostedt@...dmis.org) wrote:
[...]
> Actually, I was partly under the impression that we didn't care if it
> was in the fast path. Maybe we need three versions. Let me explain.
> 
> We have cases where we want it default disabled and the code called when
> enabled should be as out of line as possible. Tracing definitely falls
> in this pattern. But we could push a "unlikely(static_branch())" for
> such a case (or keep it as very_unlikely()).
> 
> Then we have cases where it is default enabled, where we can insert the
> code in the fast path. Or do we even care how the compiler places it?
> Because this leads us to the third use...
> 
> The third use is the case were we don't know the branch should be taken
> or not until boot. We don't want the compiler to optimize the paths at
> all. This example is for things like CPU features or types (as HPA
> explained the "if (very_unlikely(cpu_vendor_amd))". This is the category
> that we want to have an efficient system for the running hardware. We
> can't bias one way or the other at compile time because frankly, we
> don't know the answer until run time. This could also be used by modules
> that are drivers for several types of hardware, and it can dynamically
> change itself to suit the hardware it is driving.
> 
[...]
One possible naming that might be a good fit:

- read_always_likely()
- read_always_unlikely()
- read_always_branch()

I think it is important to convey both that it is expected to be always
read, pretty much never updated, and the bias, or absence of bias.

I also _like_ to have a relatively long name here, because the update
cost is so high that someone should really think before using this
facility. In my opinion, it's not "just" a stronger likely/unlikely.

Thoughts ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/