linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] locking/lockdep: unlikely bfs error check

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:48:56 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
To:     Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@...com>, peterz@...radead.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, will@...nel.org, boqun.feng@...il.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/lockdep: unlikely bfs error check

On 6/16/21 10:42 AM, Xiongwei Song wrote:
> From: Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@...il.com>
>
> The error from graph walk is small probability event, so unlikely
> bfs_error can improve performance a little bit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@...il.com>
> ---
>   kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 12 ++++++------
>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> index 074fd6418c20..af8c9203cd3e 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> @@ -2646,7 +2646,7 @@ static int check_irq_usage(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *prev,
>   	bfs_init_rootb(&this, prev);
>   
>   	ret = __bfs_backwards(&this, &usage_mask, usage_accumulate, usage_skip, NULL);
> -	if (bfs_error(ret)) {
> +	if (unlikely(bfs_error(ret))) {
>   		print_bfs_bug(ret);
>   		return 0;
>   	}
> @@ -2664,7 +2664,7 @@ static int check_irq_usage(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *prev,
>   	bfs_init_root(&that, next);
>   
>   	ret = find_usage_forwards(&that, forward_mask, &target_entry1);
> -	if (bfs_error(ret)) {
> +	if (unlikely(bfs_error(ret))) {
>   		print_bfs_bug(ret);
>   		return 0;
>   	}
> @@ -2679,7 +2679,7 @@ static int check_irq_usage(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *prev,
>   	backward_mask = original_mask(target_entry1->class->usage_mask);
>   
>   	ret = find_usage_backwards(&this, backward_mask, &target_entry);
> -	if (bfs_error(ret)) {
> +	if (unlikely(bfs_error(ret))) {
>   		print_bfs_bug(ret);
>   		return 0;
>   	}
> @@ -2998,7 +2998,7 @@ check_prev_add(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *prev,
>   	 * Is the <prev> -> <next> link redundant?
>   	 */
>   	ret = check_redundant(prev, next);
> -	if (bfs_error(ret))
> +	if (unlikely(bfs_error(ret)))
>   		return 0;
>   	else if (ret == BFS_RMATCH)
>   		return 2;
> @@ -3911,7 +3911,7 @@ check_usage_forwards(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *this,
>   
>   	bfs_init_root(&root, this);
>   	ret = find_usage_forwards(&root, usage_mask, &target_entry);
> -	if (bfs_error(ret)) {
> +	if (unlikely(bfs_error(ret))) {
>   		print_bfs_bug(ret);
>   		return 0;
>   	}
> @@ -3946,7 +3946,7 @@ check_usage_backwards(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *this,
>   
>   	bfs_init_rootb(&root, this);
>   	ret = find_usage_backwards(&root, usage_mask, &target_entry);
> -	if (bfs_error(ret)) {
> +	if (unlikely(bfs_error(ret))) {
>   		print_bfs_bug(ret);
>   		return 0;
>   	}

I think it is better to put the unlikely() directly into the bfs_error() 
inline function instead of sprinkling it all over the place.

Cheers,
Longman