linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fix WARN_ON / WARN_ON

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:	Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:06:28 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com
CC:	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, akpm@...l.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, leonid.ananiev@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix WARN_ON / WARN_ON_ONCE regression

Tim Chen wrote:
> Hi Herbet,
>
> The patch "Let WARN_ON/WARN_ON_ONCE return the condition"
> http://kernel.org/git/?
> p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=684f978347deb42d180373ac4c427f82ef963171
>
> introduced 40% more 2nd level cache miss to tbench workload
> being run in a loop back mode on a Core 2 machine.  I think the
> introduction of the local variables to WARN_ON and WARN_ON_ONCE
>
> typeof(x) __ret_warn_on = (x);
> typeof(condition) __ret_warn_once = (condition);
>
> results in the extra cache misses.  In our test workload profile, we see
> heavily used functions like do_softirq and local_bh_enable 
> takes a lot longer to execute.  
>
> The modification below helps fix the problem.  I made a slight
> modification to sched.c to get around a gcc bug.
>   

How does the generated code change?  Doesn't evaluating the condition 
multiple times have the potential to cause problems?

    J
-
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/