linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/9] lib/group_cpus: optimize inner loop in grp_spread_init

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: Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:17:00 +0800
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
	Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, ming.lei@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] lib/group_cpus: optimize inner loop in
 grp_spread_init_one()

On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 06:50:46PM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> The loop starts from the beginning every time we switch to the next
> sibling mask. This is the Schlemiel the Painter's style of coding
> because we know for sure that nmsk is clear up to current CPU, and we
> can just continue from the next CPU.
> 
> Also, we can do it nicer if leverage the dedicated for_each() iterator,
> and simplify the logic of clearing a bit in nmsk.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
> ---
>  lib/group_cpus.c | 14 +++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/group_cpus.c b/lib/group_cpus.c
> index ee272c4cefcc..063ed9ae1b8d 100644
> --- a/lib/group_cpus.c
> +++ b/lib/group_cpus.c
> @@ -30,14 +30,14 @@ static void grp_spread_init_one(struct cpumask *irqmsk, struct cpumask *nmsk,
>  
>  		/* If the cpu has siblings, use them first */
>  		siblmsk = topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu);
> -		for (sibl = -1; cpus_per_grp > 0; ) {
> -			sibl = cpumask_next(sibl, siblmsk);
> -			if (sibl >= nr_cpu_ids)
> -				break;
> -			if (!cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(sibl, nmsk))
> -				continue;
> +		sibl = cpu + 1;

No, it is silly to let 'sibl' point to 'cpu + 1', cause we just
want to iterate over 'siblmsk & nmsk', and nothing to do with
the next cpu('cpu + 1').

> +
> +		for_each_cpu_and_from(sibl, siblmsk, nmsk) {
> +			if (cpus_per_grp-- == 0)
> +				return;
> +
> +			cpumask_clear_cpu(sibl, nmsk);
>  			cpumask_set_cpu(sibl, irqmsk);
> -			cpus_per_grp--;

Andrew, please replace the 1st two patches with the following one:

>From 7a983ee5e1b4f05e5ae26c025dffd801b909e2f3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:07:26 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] lib/group_cpus.c: simplify grp_spread_init_one()

What the inner loop needs to do is to iterate over `siblmsk & nmsk`, and
clear the cpu in 'nmsk' and set it in 'irqmsk'.

Clean it by for_each_cpu_and().

This is based on Yury Norov's patch, which needs one extra
for_each_cpu_and_from(), which is really not necessary.

Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
---
 lib/group_cpus.c | 11 ++++-------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/group_cpus.c b/lib/group_cpus.c
index ee272c4cefcc..564d8e817f65 100644
--- a/lib/group_cpus.c
+++ b/lib/group_cpus.c
@@ -30,14 +30,11 @@ static void grp_spread_init_one(struct cpumask *irqmsk, struct cpumask *nmsk,
 
 		/* If the cpu has siblings, use them first */
 		siblmsk = topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu);
-		for (sibl = -1; cpus_per_grp > 0; ) {
-			sibl = cpumask_next(sibl, siblmsk);
-			if (sibl >= nr_cpu_ids)
-				break;
-			if (!cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(sibl, nmsk))
-				continue;
+		for_each_cpu_and(sibl, siblmsk, nmsk) {
+			cpumask_clear_cpu(sibl, nmsk);
 			cpumask_set_cpu(sibl, irqmsk);
-			cpus_per_grp--;
+			if (--cpus_per_grp == 0)
+				return;
 		}
 	}
 }
-- 
2.42.0





Thanks,
Ming