linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] lib/smp_processor_id: Don't use cpumask

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:   Fri, 4 Oct 2019 11:20:48 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Juri Lelli <jlelli@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] lib/smp_processor_id: Don't use cpumask_equal()

On 2019-10-03 16:36:08 [-0400], Waiman Long wrote:
> The check_preemption_disabled() function uses cpumask_equal() to see
> if the task is bounded to the current CPU only. cpumask_equal() calls
> memcmp() to do the comparison. As x86 doesn't have __HAVE_ARCH_MEMCMP,
> the slow memcmp() function in lib/string.c is used.
> 
> On a RT kernel that call check_preemption_disabled() very frequently,
> below is the perf-record output of a certain microbenchmark:
> 
>   42.75%  2.45%  testpmd [kernel.kallsyms] [k] check_preemption_disabled
>   40.01% 39.97%  testpmd [kernel.kallsyms] [k] memcmp
> 
> We should avoid calling memcmp() in performance critical path. So the
> cpumask_equal() call is now replaced with an equivalent simpler check.

using a simple integer comparison is still more efficient than what
__HAVE_ARCH_MEMCMP can offer.

> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Acked-by:  Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>

Sebastian