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]

Message-ID: <CAEVVKH_nN65D6AnJbOceSAh1ttbH+eQpb9ycGxPoYYGGnM_LwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Jun 2021 10:14:11 +0800
From:   Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@...il.com>
To:     Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
Cc:     Xiongwei Song <sxwjean@...com>, peterz@...radead.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, will@...nel.org,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/lockdep: unlikely bfs error check

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 11:11 PM Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/16/21 10:59 AM, Xiongwei Song wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
>
> Another nit. It is a bit odd that sent out two patches separately though
> they do seem to have a bit of dependency. I think you should post them
> as a 2-patch series.

Ok. Let me do it. Thank you again.

Regards,
Xiongwei

> Cheers,
> Longman
>