Re: [PATCH RFC] coccinelle: flag double conversions in msleep*

[Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>]

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:

> This spatch flags cases where msleep/msleep_interruptible converts the
> timeout parameter with jiffies_to_msecs(). msleep* performs a conversion
> of the milliseconds passed in back to jiffies and then calls the
> appropriate schedule_timeout* variant.
> 
> In cases where the timeout is constant, there is effectively no 
> difference with respect to the generated code (atleast not for the x86
> .lst files of a few cases checked) but for cases where the timeout is 
> non-constant there is an actual call to jiffies_to_msecs() at runtime, 
> that overhead can be removed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>
> ---
> 
> As of linux-next next-20160107 it finds 24 cases in the kernel
> 
> An example of where this makes a slight code difference is
> drivers/scsi/osst.c:osst_wait_ready()
> <        if (initial_delay > 0)
> <    2293:       7e 0f                   jle    22a4 <osst_wait_ready+0x34>
> <                msleep(jiffies_to_msecs(initial_delay));
> <    2295:       48 63 f9                movslq %ecx,%rdi
> <    2298:       e8 00 00 00 00          callq  229d <osst_wait_ready+0x2d>
> <                        2299: R_X86_64_PC32     jiffies_to_msecs-0x4
> <    229d:       89 c7                   mov    %eax,%edi
> <    229f:       e8 00 00 00 00          callq  22a4 <osst_wait_ready+0x34>
> <                        22a0: R_X86_64_PC32     msleep-0x4
> <
> <        memset(cmd, 0, MAX_COMMAND_SIZE);
> 
> vs:                                                                             
> 
> >        if (initial_delay > 0)
> >    2293:       7e 08                   jle    229d <osst_wait_ready+0x2d>
> >                schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(initial_delay);
> >    2295:       48 63 f9                movslq %ecx,%rdi
> >    2298:       e8 00 00 00 00          callq  229d <osst_wait_ready+0x2d>
> >                        2299: R_X86_64_PC32     schedule_timeout_uninterruptible-0x4
> >
> >        memset(cmd, 0, MAX_COMMAND_SIZE);
> 
> This patch was tested with coccinelle version 1.0.4
> 
> Confidence: Medium as I did not find any false positives for the 24
> cases that were found - some of the patches generated do not actually
> improve readability though (e.g. drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-highlander.c)
> but technically it is not incorrect ither.
> 
> patch is against linux-next (localversion-next is next-20160107)
> 
>  scripts/coccinelle/api/msleep_double_convert.cocci | 63 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 63 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 scripts/coccinelle/api/msleep_double_convert.cocci
> 
> diff --git a/scripts/coccinelle/api/msleep_double_convert.cocci b/scripts/coccinelle/api/msleep_double_convert.cocci
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..b39dd36
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/scripts/coccinelle/api/msleep_double_convert.cocci
> @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
> +/// Check for double conversion of timeouts values
> +//
> +// for constants this actually makes little sense - other than
> +// for readability - in cases where non-constants are involved there is
> +// a call to jiffies_to_msecs that is saved here.
> +//
> +// Confidence: Medium
> +// Copyright: (C) 2015 Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>, OSADL, GPL v2
> +// URL: http://coccinelle.lip6.fr
> +// Options: --no-includes --include-headers
> +
> +virtual org
> +virtual patch
> +virtual report
> +
> +@depends on patch@
> +constant C;
> +expression E;
> +@@
> +
> +(
> +- msleep_interruptible(jiffies_to_msecs(C))
> ++ schedule_timeout_interruptible(C)
> +|
> +- msleep_interruptible(jiffies_to_msecs(E))
> ++ schedule_timeout_interruptible(E)

I'm not sure to see the difference between the above two cases (and 
between all the pairs of cases below).  A constant is an expression too, 
so wouldn't you get the same result if you just drop all the C cases?  
Maybe I'm overlooking something.

Also, I'm not competant to judge the actual value of the change being 
made.  Maybe the CC list could be expanded to some people who know more 
about the issue?

thanks,
julia

> +|
> +- msleep(jiffies_to_msecs(C))
> ++ schedule_timeout(C)
> +|
> +- msleep(jiffies_to_msecs(E))
> ++ schedule_timeout(E)
> +)
> +
> +@cc depends on !patch && (org || report)@
> +constant C;
> +expression E;
> +position p;
> +@@
> +
> +(
> +* msleep_interruptible@p(jiffies_to_msecs(C))
> +|
> +* msleep_interruptible@p(jiffies_to_msecs(E))
> +|
> +* msleep@p(jiffies_to_msecs(C))
> +|
> +* msleep@p(jiffies_to_msecs(E))
> +)
> +
> +@script:python depends on org@
> +p << cc.p;
> +@@
> +
> +msg = "INFO: schedule_timeout*() preferred if timeout in jiffies"
> +coccilib.org.print_safe_todo(p[0], msg)
> +
> +@script:python depends on report@
> +p << cc.p;
> +@@
> +
> +msg = "INFO: schedule_timeout*() preferred if timeout in jiffies"
> +coccilib.report.print_report(p[0], msg)
> -- 
> 2.1.4
> 
>