[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <005501d2a225$7ab66870$70233950$@alibaba-inc.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 17:28:19 +0800
From: "Hillf Danton" <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>
To: "'Dmitry Vyukov'" <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Cc: "'Kefeng Wang'" <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
"'James Morse'" <james.morse@....com>,
"'Alexander Popov'" <alex.popov@...ux.com>,
"'Andrey Konovalov'" <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kcov: simplify interrupt check
On March 21, 2017 5:10 PM Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> @@ -60,15 +60,8 @@ void notrace __sanitizer_cov_trace_pc(void)
> /*
> * We are interested in code coverage as a function of a syscall inputs,
> * so we ignore code executed in interrupts.
> - * The checks for whether we are in an interrupt are open-coded, because
> - * 1. We can't use in_interrupt() here, since it also returns true
> - * when we are inside local_bh_disable() section.
> - * 2. We don't want to use (in_irq() | in_serving_softirq() | in_nmi()),
> - * since that leads to slower generated code (three separate tests,
> - * one for each of the flags).
> */
> - if (!t || (preempt_count() & (HARDIRQ_MASK | SOFTIRQ_OFFSET
> - | NMI_MASK)))
> + if (!t || !in_task())
> return;
Nit: can we get the current task check cut off?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists