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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Wed, 16 Jun 2021 22:59:16 +0800
From:   Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@...com>
To:     Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, will@...nel.org,
        boqun.feng@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/lockdep: unlikely bfs error check



> On Jun 16, 2021, at 10:48 PM, Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Sounds good. Thank you for the suggestion. I will update the patch.

Regards,
Xiongwei

> 
> Cheers,
> Longman
>