linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] mm: remove unlikly NULL from kfree

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0903251105030.5675@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:08:28 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
cc:	Hua Zhong <hzhong@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] mm: remove unlikly NULL from kfree


On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> 
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> 
> > Hi Steven,
> > 
> > On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > > > OK, so according to Steven, audit_syscall_exit() is one such call-site
> > > > that shows up in the traces. I don't really understand what's going on
> > > > there but if it is sane, maybe that warrants the removal of unlikely()
> > > > from kfree(). Hmm?
> > 
> > On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 10:47 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > After disabling AUDIT_SYSCALLS I have this:
> > > 
> > >  # cat /debug/tracing/trace | sort -u
> > > 
> > > record_nulls: ptr=(null) (ext3_get_acl+0x1e0/0x3f0 [ext3])
> > > record_nulls: ptr=(null) (free_bitmap+0x29/0x70)
> > > record_nulls: ptr=(null) (free_tty_struct+0x1d/0x40)
> > > record_nulls: ptr=(null) (ftrace_graph_exit_task+0x1e/0x20)
> > > record_nulls: ptr=(null) (inet_sock_destruct+0x1cb/0x2a0)
> > > record_nulls: ptr=(null) (ip_cork_release+0x24/0x50)
> > > record_nulls: ptr=(null) (keyctl_join_session_keyring+0x5a/0x70)
> > > record_nulls: ptr=(null) (key_user_lookup+0x183/0x220)
> > > record_nulls: ptr=(null) (kobject_set_name_vargs+0x43/0x50)
> > > record_nulls: ptr=(null) (netlink_release+0x1a4/0x2f0)
> > > record_nulls: ptr=(null) (release_sysfs_dirent+0x20/0xc0)
> > > record_nulls: ptr=(null) (sysfs_open_file+0x1c8/0x3e0)
> > > record_nulls: ptr=(null) (tty_write+0x16a/0x290)
> > > 
> > > I added a hook to only record when NULL is passed into kfree.
> > > 
> > > Also note, that after disabling AUDIT_SYSCALLS I now only have roughly 7% 
> > > NULL hit rate. Still, unlikely is probably not a benefit here.
> > 
> > Thanks for doing this. Do you mean that 93% hit ratio is not enough to
> > be a performance gain?
> 
> I think it was Christoph Lameter (good you Cc'd him) told me that anything 
> less that 99% is not worthy of a (un)likely macro.
> 
> I honestly don't know.

I think the theory is that gcc and the CPU can handle normal branch 
predictions well. But if you use one of the prediction macros, gcc 
(and some archs) behaves differently, such that taking the wrong branch 
can cost more than the time saved with all the other correct hits.

Again, I'm not sure. I haven't done the bench marks. Perhaps someone else 
is more apt at knowing the details here.

-- Steve

--
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/