linux-kernel - Re: [patch 10/19] preempt: Cleanup the macro maze a bit

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: <20201117102119.GE3121406@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 17 Nov 2020 11:21:19 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        Helge Deller <deller@....de>, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
        Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>,
        linux-um@...ts.infradead.org, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 10/19] preempt: Cleanup the macro maze a bit

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 06:42:19PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16 2020 at 13:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 03:02:17PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> >> -#define irq_count()	(preempt_count() & (HARDIRQ_MASK | SOFTIRQ_MASK \
> >> -				 | NMI_MASK))
> >> +#define irq_count()	(nmi_count() | hardirq_count() | softirq_count())
> >
> >
> >> +#define in_task()		(!(in_nmi() | in_hardirq() | in_serving_softirq()))
> >> -#define in_task()		(!(preempt_count() & \
> >> -				   (NMI_MASK | HARDIRQ_MASK | SOFTIRQ_OFFSET)))
> >
> > How horrible is the code-gen? Because preempt_count() is
> > raw_cpu_read_4() and at least some old compilers will refuse to CSE it
> > (consider the this_cpu_read_stable mess).
> 
> I looked at gcc8 and 10 output and the compilers are smart enough to
> fold it for the !RT case. But yeah ...

If recent GCC is smart enough I suppose it doesn't matter, thanks!