linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] pwm: pwm-imx27: Use 'dev' instead of dereferencing it repeatedly

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]

Date:   Wed, 25 Sep 2019 02:36:16 +0000
From:   Anson Huang <anson.huang@....com>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        "thierry.reding@...il.com" <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        "shawnguo@...nel.org" <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        "s.hauer@...gutronix.de" <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        "kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        "festevam@...il.com" <festevam@...il.com>,
        "linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] pwm: pwm-imx27: Use 'dev' instead of dereferencing it
 repeatedly

Hi, David

> Subject: RE: [PATCH] pwm: pwm-imx27: Use 'dev' instead of dereferencing it
> repeatedly
> 
> From: Anson Huang
> > Sent: 24 September 2019 11:03
> > Hi, David
> >
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] pwm: pwm-imx27: Use 'dev' instead of
> > > dereferencing it repeatedly
> > >
> > > From: Anson Huang
> > > > Sent: 24 September 2019 10:00
> > > > Add helper variable dev = &pdev->dev to simply the code.
> > > >
> ...
> > > >  static int pwm_imx27_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)  {
> > > > +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > > >  	struct pwm_imx27_chip *imx;
> > > >
> > > > -	imx = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*imx), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > +	imx = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*imx), GFP_KERNEL);
> ...
> > > Hopefully the compiler will optimise this back otherwise you've
> > > added another local variable which may cause spilling to stack.
> > > For a setup function it probably doesn't matter, but in general it
> > > might have a small negative performance impact.
> > >
> > > In any case this doesn't shorten any lines enough to remove
> > > line-wrap and using &pdev->dev is really one less variable to
> > > mentally track when reading the code.
> >
> > Do we know which compiler will optimize this? I saw many of the
> > patches doing this to avoid a lot of dereference, I understand it does
> > NOT save lines, but my intention is to avoid dereference which might save
> some instructions.
> >
> > I thought saving instructions is more important. So now there are
> > different opinion about doing this?
> 
> Remember &pdev->dev is just 'pdev + constant'.
> Assuming 'pdev' is held in a callee saved register (which you want it to be)
> then to access
> dev->foo the compiler can remember the constant and use an offset from
> dev->'pdev' instead of
> an extra 'dev' variable.
> On most modern ABI the first function call arguments are passed in registers.
> So an add  instruction (probably lea) can be used to add the constant offset
> at the same time as the value is moved into the argument register.
> 
> However your extra variable could easily get spilled out to the stack.
> So you get an extra memory read rather than (at most) an extra 'add'
> instruction.
> 
> Even if pdev->dev were a pointer, repeatedly reading it from pdev->dev
> could easily generate better code than having an extra variable that would
> mean the value was repeatedly read from the stack.

Thanks for detail education about it, please ignore these patches.

Thanks,
Anson