linux-kernel - [tip:locking/core] locking/lockdep: Add a faster path in __lock

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: <tip-ce52a18db45842f5b992851a552bd7f6acb2241b@git.kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 3 Oct 2018 00:31:58 -0700
From:   tip-bot for Waiman Long <tipbot@...or.com>
To:     linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     will.deacon@....com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...nel.org,
        longman@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: [tip:locking/core] locking/lockdep: Add a faster path in
 __lock_release()

Commit-ID:  ce52a18db45842f5b992851a552bd7f6acb2241b
Gitweb:     https://git.kernel.org/tip/ce52a18db45842f5b992851a552bd7f6acb2241b
Author:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
AuthorDate: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 16:19:18 -0400
Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CommitDate: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 08:46:03 +0200

locking/lockdep: Add a faster path in __lock_release()

When __lock_release() is called, the most likely unlock scenario is
on the innermost lock in the chain.  In this case, we can skip some of
the checks and provide a faster path to completion.

Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1538511560-10090-4-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
---
 kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 17 ++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index a5d7db558928..511d30f88bce 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -3626,6 +3626,13 @@ __lock_release(struct lockdep_map *lock, int nested, unsigned long ip)
 	curr->lockdep_depth = i;
 	curr->curr_chain_key = hlock->prev_chain_key;
 
+	/*
+	 * The most likely case is when the unlock is on the innermost
+	 * lock. In this case, we are done!
+	 */
+	if (i == depth-1)
+		return 1;
+
 	if (reacquire_held_locks(curr, depth, i + 1))
 		return 0;
 
@@ -3633,10 +3640,14 @@ __lock_release(struct lockdep_map *lock, int nested, unsigned long ip)
 	 * We had N bottles of beer on the wall, we drank one, but now
 	 * there's not N-1 bottles of beer left on the wall...
 	 */
-	if (DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(curr->lockdep_depth != depth - 1))
-		return 0;
+	DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(curr->lockdep_depth != depth-1);
 
-	return 1;
+	/*
+	 * Since reacquire_held_locks() would have called check_chain_key()
+	 * indirectly via __lock_acquire(), we don't need to do it again
+	 * on return.
+	 */
+	return 0;
 }
 
 static int __lock_is_held(const struct lockdep_map *lock, int read)