From: "tip-bot for H. Peter Anvin" <tipbot@zytor.com>
To: linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, mingo@kernel.org,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: [tip:x86/asm] x86: Slightly tweak the access_ok() C variant for better code
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 17:00:50 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <tip-34f873a773c59f738aff8f412fa59d528f1b3e3f@git.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzPBdbfKovMT8Edr4SmE2_=+OKJFac9XW2awegogTkVTA@mail.gmail.com>
Commit-ID: 34f873a773c59f738aff8f412fa59d528f1b3e3f
Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/34f873a773c59f738aff8f412fa59d528f1b3e3f
Author: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
AuthorDate: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 16:52:47 -0800
Committer: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
CommitDate: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 16:58:17 -0800
x86: Slightly tweak the access_ok() C variant for better code
gcc can under very specific circumstances realize that the code
sequence:
foo += bar;
if (foo < bar) ...
... is equivalent to a carry out from the addition. Tweak the
implementation of access_ok() (specifically __chk_range_not_ok()) to
make it more likely that gcc will make that connection. It isn't
fool-proof (sometimes gcc seems to think it can make better code with
lea, and ends up with a second comparison), still, but it seems to be
able to connect the two more frequently this way.
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/CA%2B55aFzPBdbfKovMT8Edr4SmE2_=%2BOKJFac9XW2awegogTkVTA@mail.gmail.com
Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
---
arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h | 8 +++++---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
index 84ecf1d..4f02113 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@
* Test whether a block of memory is a valid user space address.
* Returns 0 if the range is valid, nonzero otherwise.
*/
-static inline int __chk_range_not_ok(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size, unsigned long limit)
+static inline bool __chk_range_not_ok(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size, unsigned long limit)
{
/*
* If we have used "sizeof()" for the size,
@@ -55,7 +55,9 @@ static inline int __chk_range_not_ok(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size, uns
/* Arbitrary sizes? Be careful about overflow */
addr += size;
- return (addr < size) || (addr > limit);
+ if (addr < size)
+ return true;
+ return addr > limit;
}
#define __range_not_ok(addr, size, limit) \
@@ -84,7 +86,7 @@ static inline int __chk_range_not_ok(unsigned long addr, unsigned long size, uns
* this function, memory access functions may still return -EFAULT.
*/
#define access_ok(type, addr, size) \
- (likely(__range_not_ok(addr, size, user_addr_max()) == 0))
+ unlikely(!__range_not_ok(addr, size, user_addr_max()))
/*
* The exception table consists of pairs of addresses relative to the
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-28 1:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-21 20:27 [RFC] speeding up the stat() family of system calls Linus Torvalds
2013-12-21 22:54 ` John Stoffel
2013-12-22 0:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-12-24 0:00 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-12-24 0:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-12-24 6:00 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-12-24 20:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-26 19:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-12-27 0:45 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-12-27 3:18 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-12-27 6:09 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-12-27 23:30 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-01-12 17:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-28 1:00 ` [tip:x86/asm] x86: Replace assembly access_ok() with a C variant tip-bot for Linus Torvalds
2013-12-28 1:00 ` tip-bot for H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2013-12-28 1:06 ` [tip:x86/asm] x86: Slightly tweak the access_ok() C variant for better code tip-bot for H. Peter Anvin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=tip-34f873a773c59f738aff8f412fa59d528f1b3e3f@git.kernel.org \
--to=tipbot@zytor.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome