linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 07/10] module: Optimize __module

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: <20150414123102.GK5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:31:02 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	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,
	laijs@...fujitsu.com, linux@...izon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/10] module: Optimize __module_address() using a
 latched RB-tree

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 06:49:49PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> > +static __always_inline int
> > +mod_tree_comp(void *key, struct latch_tree_node *n)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long val = (unsigned long)key;
> > +	unsigned long start, end;
> > +
> > +	end = start = __mod_tree_val(n);
> > +	end += __mod_tree_size(n);
> > +
> > +	if (val < start)
> > +		return -1;
> > +
> > +	if (val >= end)
> > +		return 1;
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> 
> So since we are counting nanoseconds, I suspect this could be written 
> more optimally as:
> 
> {
> 	unsigned long val = (unsigned long)key;
> 	unsigned long start, end;
> 
> 	start = __mod_tree_val(n);
> 	if (val < start)
> 		return -1;
> 
> 	end = start + __mod_tree_size(n);
> 	if (val >= end)
> 		return 1;
> 
> 	return 0;
> }
> 
> right?

I was afraid it would rip apart the common bits of
__mod_tree_{val,size}(), iow. it would end up doing the whole
latch_tree_node -> mod_tree_node -> mod and mtn_init comparison dance
twice.

But GCC does the right thing, so yes.
--
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/