linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hrtimer: Avoid double reprogramming in __hrtimer_start_range

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:   Mon, 26 Apr 2021 16:27:08 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        mikael.beckius@...driver.com,
        Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hrtimer: Avoid double reprogramming in __hrtimer_start_range_ns()

On Mon, Apr 26 2021 at 14:40, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 02:33:00PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
>> >> +	force_local = base->cpu_base == this_cpu_ptr(&hrtimer_bases);
>> >> +	force_local &= base->cpu_base->next_timer == timer;
>> >
>> > Using bitwise ops on a bool is cute and all, but isn't that more
>> > readable when written like:
>> >
>> > 	force_local = base->cpu_base == this_cpu_ptr(&hrtimer_bases) &&
>> > 		      base->cpu_base->next_timer == timer;
>> >
>> 
>> Which results in an extra conditional branch.
>
> Srlsy, compiler not smart enough?

gcc 8.3 is definitely not ...