linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/8] rbtree: Implement generic latch

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: <20150319135833.5a844744936bd8fdafea7ed5@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:58:33 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	mingo@...nel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, oleg@...hat.com,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, andi@...stfloor.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@...el.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] rbtree: Implement generic latch_tree

On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 08:25:02 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:14:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:36:32 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > 
> > >  include/linux/rbtree_latch.h |  223 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 
> > Did it really need to all be inlined?
> 
> Without that you get actual function calls to the less() and comp()
> operators. This way GCC can inline the lot even though its function
> pointers.
> 
> The typical RB tree user open-codes all this every single time.

Is it a good tradeoff?

> > How much of this code is unneeded on uniprocessor?
> 
> None, UP has NMIs too.

OK.  This code is basically required to support perf/ftrace and
modules, yes?  Presumably small and space-constrained systems aren't
using either, so they don't take the hit.

However CONFIG_MODULES systems which aren't using perf/ftrace _do_ take
a hit.  How many systems are we talking here?  All non-x86?
--
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/