linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 14/21] cpuidle: coupled: don't compare cpu masks unnecessarily

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:	Thu, 26 Sep 2013 01:50:22 -0500
From:	Colin Cross <ccross@...gle.com>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	"patches@...aro.org" <patches@...aro.org>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/21] cpuidle: coupled: don't compare cpu masks unnecessarily

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 26 September 2013 05:55, Colin Cross <ccross@...gle.com> wrote:
>> I don't agree with this.  This patch is a tiny optimization in code
>> that is rarely called, and it moves a final sanity check somewhere
>> that it might get missed if the code were later refactored.
>
> This is what we are doing for the first cpu of coupled-cpus:
> if (WARN_ON(!cpumask_equal(&dev->coupled_cpus, &dev->coupled_cpus)))
>     coupled->prevent++;
>
> i.e. comparing a variable to itself :)
>
> And I believe my patch puts the sanity check at the right place (where
> we are using coupled from existing CPUs.. And that is where it should
> have been since the beginning)..
>
> If people miss this during code re-factoring, then it would be even more
> stupid on the part of Author and Reviewer.. And if it still gets missed
> then this is not the only place where we need to worry about such stuff..
>
> This is present everywhere in our code.. You can't really some part of
> code to some place and leave the other as-is.. The change is supposed
> to be more logical and so funny mistakes must be caught during reviews.

It's fine where it is.  Once dev and coupled are both known,
regardless of how they were found, it performs a final sanity check
that nothing went wrong.  Moving into a specific branch of the finding
code defeats the purpose.  Yes, it performs a useless check on the
first cpu, but it keeps the code readable and maintainable, so it
stays where it is.  NAK.
--
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/