linux-kernel - Re: Should we be using unlikely() around tests of GFP

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]

Message-ID: <AANLkTik9VodSjNnubf4Psbb9TgOEufw0m2q1_e5+X165@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 3 Jan 2011 16:10:51 +0200
From:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	npiggin@...nel.dk
Subject: Re: Should we be using unlikely() around tests of GFP_ZERO?

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 09:40 +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
>> >> Given the patches being busily submitted by trivial patch submitters to
>> >> make use kmem_cache_zalloc(), et. al, I believe we should remove the
>> >> unlikely() tests around the (gfp_flags & __GFP_ZERO) tests, such as:
>> >>
>> >> -       if (unlikely((flags & __GFP_ZERO) && objp))
>> >> +       if ((flags & __GFP_ZERO) && objp)
>> >>                memset(objp, 0, obj_size(cachep));
>> >>
>> >> Agreed?  If so, I'll send a patch...
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com> wrote:
>> > I support it.
>>
>> I guess the rationale here is that if you're going to take the hit of
>> memset() you can take the hit of unlikely() as well. We're optimizing
>> for hot call-sites that allocate a small amount of memory and
>> initialize everything themselves. That said, I don't think the
>> unlikely() annotation matters much either way and am for removing it
>> unless people object to that.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com> wrote:
>> > Recently Steven tried to gather the information.
>> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1072767
>> > Maybe he might have a number for that.
>>
>> That would be interesting, sure.
>
> Note, you could do it yourself too. Just enable:
>
>  Kernel Hacking -> Tracers -> Branch Profiling
>    (Trace likely/unlikely profiler)
>
>   CONFIG_PROFILE_ANNOTATED_BRANCHES
>
> Then search /debug/tracing/trace_stats/branch_annotated.
>
> (hmm, the help in Kconfig is wrong, I need to fix that)
>
>
> Anyway, here's my box. I just started it an hour ago, and have not been
> doing too much on it yet. But here's what I got (using SLUB)
>
>
>  correct incorrect  %        Function                  File              Line
>  ------- ---------  -        --------                  ----              ----
>  6890998  2784830  28        slab_alloc                slub.c            1719
>
> That's incorrect 28% of the time.

Thanks! AFAICT, that number is high enough to justify removing the
unlikely() annotations, no?
--
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/