lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Oct]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
Subject[tip:x86/asm] x86/uaccess: Tell the compiler that uaccess is unlikely to fault
Commit-ID:  a76cf66e948afbaeda8e3ecc861f29c47a026c27
Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/a76cf66e948afbaeda8e3ecc861f29c47a026c27
Author: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
AuthorDate: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 17:47:49 -0700
Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
CommitDate: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 11:34:06 +0200

x86/uaccess: Tell the compiler that uaccess is unlikely to fault

GCC doesn't realize that get_user(), put_user(), and their __
variants are unlikely to fail. Tell it.

I noticed this while playing with the C entry code.

Before:
text data bss dec filename
21828763 5194760 1277952 28301475 vmlinux.baseline

After:
text data bss dec filename
21828379 5194760 1277952 28301091 vmlinux.new

The generated code shrunk by 384 bytes.

Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/dc37bed7024319c3004d950d57151fca6aeacf97.1444091584.git.luto@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
---
arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
index a8df874..3e911c6 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
@@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ __typeof__(__builtin_choose_expr(sizeof(x) > sizeof(0UL), 0ULL, 0UL))
: "=a" (__ret_gu), "=r" (__val_gu) \
: "0" (ptr), "i" (sizeof(*(ptr)))); \
(x) = (__force __typeof__(*(ptr))) __val_gu; \
- __ret_gu; \
+ __builtin_expect(__ret_gu, 0); \
})

#define __put_user_x(size, x, ptr, __ret_pu) \
@@ -278,7 +278,7 @@ extern void __put_user_8(void);
__put_user_x(X, __pu_val, ptr, __ret_pu); \
break; \
} \
- __ret_pu; \
+ __builtin_expect(__ret_pu, 0); \
})

#define __put_user_size(x, ptr, size, retval, errret) \
@@ -401,7 +401,7 @@ do { \
({ \
int __pu_err; \
__put_user_size((x), (ptr), (size), __pu_err, -EFAULT); \
- __pu_err; \
+ __builtin_expect(__pu_err, 0); \
})

#define __get_user_nocheck(x, ptr, size) \
@@ -410,7 +410,7 @@ do { \
unsigned long __gu_val; \
__get_user_size(__gu_val, (ptr), (size), __gu_err, -EFAULT); \
(x) = (__force __typeof__(*(ptr)))__gu_val; \
- __gu_err; \
+ __builtin_expect(__gu_err, 0); \
})

/* FIXME: this hack is definitely wrong -AK */

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-10-07 18:41    [W:0.504 / U:0.372 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site