| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <c08f28e5c0461384c8d9a9d2d8b04799@codeaurora.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 07:20:55 +0800
From: yuankuiz@...eaurora.org
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-pm-owner@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
joe@...ches.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] time: tick-sched: use bool for tick_stopped
++
On 2018-04-11 07:09 AM, yuankuiz@...eaurora.org wrote:
> ++
>
> On 2018-04-10 10:49 PM, yuankuiz@...eaurora.org wrote:
>> Typo...
>>
>> On 2018-04-10 10:08 PM, yuankuiz@...eaurora.org wrote:
>>> On 2018-04-10 07:06 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, yuankuiz@...eaurora.org wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-04-10 05:10 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>>> > On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, yuankuiz@...eaurora.org wrote:
>>>>> > > On 2018-04-10 04:00 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>> > > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 9:33 AM, <yuankuiz@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>>>>> > > > > From: John Zhao <yuankuiz@...eaurora.org>
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > Variable tick_stopped returned by tick_nohz_tick_stopped
>>>>> > > > > can have only true / false values. Since the return type
>>>>> > > > > of the tick_nohz_tick_stopped is also bool, variable
>>>>> > > > > tick_stopped nice to have data type as bool in place of unsigned int.
>>>>> > > > > Moreover, the executed instructions cost could be minimal
>>>>> > > > > without potiential data type conversion.
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > Signed-off-by: John Zhao <yuankuiz@...eaurora.org>
>>>>> > > > > ---
>>>>> > > > > kernel/time/tick-sched.h | 2 +-
>>>>> > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.h b/kernel/time/tick-sched.h
>>>>> > > > > index 6de959a..4d34309 100644
>>>>> > > > > --- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.h
>>>>> > > > > +++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.h
>>>>> > > > > @@ -48,8 +48,8 @@ struct tick_sched {
>>>>> > > > > unsigned long check_clocks;
>>>>> > > > > enum tick_nohz_mode nohz_mode;
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > + bool tick_stopped : 1;
>>>>> > > > > unsigned int inidle : 1;
>>>>> > > > > - unsigned int tick_stopped : 1;
>>>>> > > > > unsigned int idle_active : 1;
>>>>> > > > > unsigned int do_timer_last : 1;
>>>>> > > > > unsigned int got_idle_tick : 1;
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > I don't think this is a good idea at all.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Please see https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/21/384 for example.
>>>>> > > [ZJ] Thanks for this sharing. Looks like, this patch fall into the case of
>>>>> > > "Maybe".
>>>>> >
>>>>> > This patch falls into the case 'pointless' because it adds extra storage
>>>>> [ZJ] 1 bit vs 1 bit. no more.
>>>>
>>>> Groan. No. Care to look at the data structure? You create a new
>>>> storage,
>>> [ZJ] Say, {unsigned int, unsigned int, unsigned int, unsigned int,
>>> unsigned int} becomes
>>> {bool , unsigned int, unsigned int, unsigned int,
>>> unsigned int}
>>> As specified by the rule No.10 at the section 6.7.2.1 of C99 TC2 as:
>>> "If enough space remains, a bit-field that immediately follows
>>> another
>>> bit-field in a
>>> structure shall be packed into adjacent bits of the same unit." What
>>> is the new storage so far?
>>>
>>>> which is incidentally merged into the other bitfield by the compiler
>>>> at a
>>>> different bit position, but there is no guarantee that a compiler
>>>> does
>>>> that. It's free to use distinct storage for that bool based bit.
>>> [ZJ] Per the rule No.10 at section 6.7.2.1 of C99 TC2 as:
>>> " If insufficient space remains, whether a bit-field that does
>>> not fit is put into
>>> the next unit or overlaps adjacent units is
>>> implementation-defined."
>>> So, implementation is never mind which type will be stored if any.
>>>
>>>> >> > for no benefit at all.
>>>>> [ZJ] tick_stopped is returned by the tick_nohz_tick_stopped() which
>>>>> is bool.
>>>>> The benefit is no any potiential type conversion could be minded.
>>>>
>>>> A bit stays a bit. 'bool foo : 1;' or 'unsigned int foo : 1' has to
>>>> be
>>>> evaluated as a bit. So there is a type conversion from BIT to bool
>>>> required
>>>> because BIT != bool.
>>> [ZJ] Per the rule No.9 at section 6.7.2.1 of C99 TC2 as:
>>> "If the value 0 or 1 is stored into a nonzero-width
>>> bit-field of types
>>> _Bool, the value of the bit-field shall compare equal to the value
>>> stored."
>>> Obviously, it is nothing related to type conversion actually.
>>>>
>>>> By chance the evaluation can be done by evaluating the byte in which
>>>> the
>>>> bit is placed just because the compiler knows that the remaining
>>>> bits are
>>>> not used. There is no guarantee that this is done, it happens to be
>>>> true
>>>> for a particular compiler.
>>> [ZJ] Actually, such as GCC owe that kind of guarantee to be promised
>>> by ABI.
>>>>
>>>> But that does not make it any more interesting. It just makes the
>>>> code
>>>> harder to read and eventually leads to bigger storage.
>>> [ZJ] To get the benctifit to be profiled, it is given as:
>>> number of instructions of function tick_nohz_tick_stopped():
>> [ZJ] Here, I used is not the tick_nohz_tick_stopped(), but an
>> evaluation() as:
>> #include <stdio.h>
>> #include <stdbool.h>
>>
>> struct tick_sched {
>> unsigned int inidle : 1;
>> unsigned int tick_stopped : 1;
>> };
>>
>> bool get_status()
>> {
>> struct tick_sched *ts;
>> ts->tick_stopped = 1;
>> return ts->tick_stopped;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> if (get_status()) return 0;
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> [ZJ] Toggle the declaration of tick_stopped in side of the tick_sched
>> structure for comparison.
>>
>>
>>> original: 17
>>> patched: 14
>>> Which was saved is:
>>> movzbl %al, %eax
>>> testl %eax, %eax
>>> setne %al
>>> Say, 3 / 17 = 17 % could be gained in the instruction executed
>>> for this function can be evaluated.
>>>
>>> Note:
>>> The environment I used is:
>>> OS : Ubuntu Desktop 16.04 LTS
>>> gcc: 6.3.0 (without optimization
>>> for in general purpose)
>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Just FYI.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> ZJ
Powered by blists - more mailing lists