linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 29/38] tick-sched: remove wrapper around __tick_nohz_task

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: <CAKohpokVAbD=ym9c6UpRjbWnmzMbTwukgMo1_h+VOeRyPXxZKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 15 Apr 2014 15:23:37 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arvind Chauhan <Arvind.Chauhan@....com>,
	Linaro Networking <linaro-networking@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 29/38] tick-sched: remove wrapper around __tick_nohz_task_switch()

On 15 April 2014 14:43, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> Yeah. But not just that.
>
> Using an inline saves a function call and reduce the offline case to a simple
> condition check. But there is also the jump label that reduce the condition check
> to an unconditional jump in the off case.
>
> To summarize, here's how calling tick_nohz_task_switch() maps to final C code:
>
> finish_task_switch()
> {
>        //do things before calling tick_nohz_task_switch()...
>        // call tick_nohz_task_switch
>        goto offcase;
>        if (tick_nohz_full_enabled())
>            __tick_nohz_task_switch(tsk);
> offcase:
>       //end of call to tick_nohz_task_switch
>       //do things before calling tick_nohz_task_switch()...
> }
>
> In the offcase, the code is like above. We don't even do the check, thanks to
> the jump label code we unconditionally jump to what's next in finish_task_switch()
> (there is actually nothing afterward but that's for the picture).
>
> Now if there is at least a CPU that is full dynticks on boot, it is enabled
> with context_tracking_cpu_set(). Then the jump label code patches the code in
> finish_task_switch() to turn the goto offcase into a nop. Then the condition is
> actually verified on every call to finish_task_switch().
>
> So it goes beyond than just saving a function call.

Sorry, but my poor mind still couldn't understand what you are trying to
tell me :(

So lets clarify things one by one :)

- What do you mean by offcase? CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL not configured
into the kernel or it is configured but none of the CPUs is running in that
mode?

- Also what does it correspond to in code: goto offcase; ? There is no labels
or goto statements in code that I can see.. This is how the code looks to me.

> finish_task_switch()
> {
>        //do things before calling tick_nohz_task_switch()...
>        // call tick_nohz_task_switch
>        if (tick_nohz_full_enabled())
>            __tick_nohz_task_switch(tsk);
> }

__tick_nohz_task_switch() may or maynot be available at all depending
on CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL is enabled into the kernel or not. But that
was the case with tick_nohz_task_switch() as well in my patch. So
shouldn't make a difference..

Again, sorry for not understanding what you are trying to explain here.
I want to understand this once and for all and probably add a comment
here as well :)

--
viresh
--
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/