linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86, locking: Inline *_unlock_bh & *_unlock

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1702101252450.4036@nanos>
Date:   Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:53:52 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, locking: Inline *_unlock_bh & *_unlock_irqrestore

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017, Waiman Long wrote:

> For spinlock and read-write locks, both *_unlock() and *_unlock_irq()
> functions are inlined if !PREEMPT. Whereas the *_unlock_bh() and
> *unlock_irqrestore() are not inlined as that will increase the size
> of the kernel binary.
> 
> Given the fact that the PV qspinlock unlock call is a callee-saved
> function pointer, the unlock function is essentially a leaf function
> if !PREEMPT is true under all circumstances. Inlining it will enable
> the compiler to do much better optimization around the the unlock
> call sites. Similarly for the read-write locks.
> 
> To unleash this additional performance, all these unlock functions
> are now inlined for x86-64 kernel where kernel size is usually less
> of a concern. For 32-bit kernel, it is assumed that the focus will
> be a bit more on kernel size optimization and so those functions are
> not inlined.
> 
> With 4.9.6 kernel source and gcc 4.8.5-11 compiler, the text size
> of the base vmlinux binary increased from 8527918 bytes to 8462235
> bytes. That was an increase of 0.78%.

Increased from 8527918 bytes to 8462235?