code made very faster #562

lyubchev · 2018-06-18T20:29:09Z

No description provided.

KernelPRBot · 2018-06-18T20:29:55Z

Hi @IMPZERO!

Thanks for your contribution to the Linux kernel!

Linux kernel development happens on mailing lists, rather than on GitHub - this GitHub repository is a read-only mirror that isn't used for accepting contributions. So that your change can become part of Linux, please email it to us as a patch.

Sending patches isn't quite as simple as sending a pull request, but fortunately it is a well documented process.

Here's what to do:

Format your contribution according to kernel requirements
Decide who to send your contribution to
Set up your system to send your contribution as an email
Send your contribution and wait for feedback

How do I format my contribution?

The Linux kernel community is notoriously picky about how contributions are formatted and sent. Fortunately, they have documented their expectations.

Firstly, all contributions need to be formatted as patches. A patch is a plain text document showing the change you want to make to the code, and documenting why it is a good idea.

You can create patches with git format-patch.

Secondly, patches need 'commit messages', which is the human-friendly documentation explaining what the change is and why it's necessary.

Thirdly, changes have some technical requirements. There is a Linux kernel coding style, and there are licensing requirements you need to comply with.

Both of these are documented in the Submitting Patches documentation that is part of the kernel.

Note that you will almost certainly have to modify your existing git commits to satisfy these requirements. Don't worry: there are many guides on the internet for doing this.

Who do I send my contribution to?

The Linux kernel is composed of a number of subsystems. These subsystems are maintained by different people, and have different mailing lists where they discuss proposed changes.

If you don't already know what subsystem your change belongs to, the get_maintainer.pl script in the kernel source can help you.

get_maintainer.pl will take the patch or patches you created in the previous step, and tell you who is responsible for them, and what mailing lists are used. You can also take a look at the MAINTAINERS file by hand.

Make sure that your list of recipients includes a mailing list. If you can't find a more specific mailing list, then LKML - the Linux Kernel Mailing List - is the place to send your patches.

It's not usually necessary to subscribe to the mailing list before you send the patches, but if you're interested in kernel development, subscribing to a subsystem mailing list is a good idea. (At this point, you probably don't need to subscribe to LKML - it is a very high traffic list with about a thousand messages per day, which is often not useful for beginners.)

How do I send my contribution?

Use git send-email, which will ensure that your patches are formatted in the standard manner. In order to use git send-email, you'll need to configure git to use your SMTP email server.

For more information about using git send-email, look at the Git documentation or type git help send-email. There are a number of useful guides and tutorials about git send-email that can be found on the internet.

How do I get help if I'm stuck?

Firstly, don't get discouraged! There are an enormous number of resources on the internet, and many kernel developers who would like to see you succeed.

Many issues - especially about how to use certain tools - can be resolved by using your favourite internet search engine.

If you can't find an answer, there are a few places you can turn:

Kernel Newbies - this website contains a lot of useful resources for new kernel developers.
The kernel documentation - see also the Documentation directory in the kernel tree.

If you get really, really stuck, you could try the owners of this bot, @daxtens and @ajdlinux. Please be aware that we do have full-time jobs, so we are almost certainly the slowest way to get answers!

I sent my patch - now what?

You wait.

You can check that your email has been received by checking the mailing list archives for the mailing list you sent your patch to. Messages may not be received instantly, so be patient. Kernel developers are generally very busy people, so it may take a few weeks before your patch is looked at.

Then, you keep waiting. Three things may happen:

You might get a response to your email. Often these will be comments, which may require you to make changes to your patch, or explain why your way is the best way. You should respond to these comments, and you may need to submit another revision of your patch to address the issues raised.
Your patch might be merged into the subsystem tree. Code that becomes part of Linux isn't merged into the main repository straight away - it first goes into the subsystem tree, which is managed by the subsystem maintainer. It is then batched up with a number of other changes sent to Linus for inclusion. (This process is described in some detail in the kernel development process guide).
Your patch might be ignored completely. This happens sometimes - don't take it personally. Here's what to do:
- Wait a bit more - patches often take several weeks to get a response; more if they were sent at a busy time.
- Kernel developers often silently ignore patches that break the rules. Check for obvious violations of the Submitting Patches guidelines, the style guidelines, and any other documentation you can find about your subsystem. Check that you're sending your patch to the right place.
- Try again later. When you resend it, don't add angry commentary, as that will get your patch ignored. It might also get you silently blacklisted.

Further information

Working with the kernel development community - the official documentation for new kernel contributors

Happy hacking!

This message was posted by a bot - if you have any questions or suggestions, please talk to my owners, @ajdlinux and @daxtens, or raise an issue at https://github.com/ajdlinux/KernelPRBot.

fr3fou · 2018-06-18T20:39:00Z

i like

mm-git01 · 2018-06-19T05:32:09Z

these trolls are getting better by each day.

lolxnn · 2018-06-19T13:16:27Z

okay then

sushant10 · 2018-06-21T19:37:19Z

i approve

voidnull000 · 2018-06-21T19:44:56Z

Another "put code on one line for optimization pr"?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

offchan42 · 2018-07-03T13:19:37Z

This guy is going places.

offchan42

I think there are too much content in the README file. Fix that.

joeydash · 2018-07-08T06:59:48Z

Hello frands chai pilo ;-)

dkluin · 2018-07-11T16:35:40Z

LOL.

arnavb · 2018-07-14T22:24:59Z

Oh gawd that face... O-O

john20xdoe

👍 LGTM

invalidsudo · 2018-07-19T06:30:48Z

I actually believed this at first until I saw this guy's profile...

I should stay off XDA-developers for a bit.

KenSharp · 2018-07-22T23:03:22Z

yawn Can we close this garbage now?

gi097 · 2018-08-08T13:11:12Z

Very well done sir! I really like your coding skills.

Fix checkpatch warnings: WARNING: Prefer 'unsigned int' to bare use of 'unsigned' torvalds#562: FILE: drivers/tty/serial/uartlite.c:562: + unsigned retries = 1000000; WARNING: Prefer 'unsigned int' to bare use of 'unsigned' torvalds#574: FILE: drivers/tty/serial/uartlite.c:574: + const char *s, unsigned n) Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt <[email protected]> Acked-by: Peter Korsgaard <[email protected]>

Fix checkpatch warnings: WARNING: Prefer 'unsigned int' to bare use of 'unsigned' torvalds#562: FILE: drivers/tty/serial/uartlite.c:562: + unsigned retries = 1000000; WARNING: Prefer 'unsigned int' to bare use of 'unsigned' torvalds#574: FILE: drivers/tty/serial/uartlite.c:574: + const char *s, unsigned n) Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt <[email protected]>

`Makefile` cleanups

Except for initial reference, mddev->kobject is referenced by rdev->kobject, and if the last rdev is freed, there is no guarantee that mddev is still valid. Hence mddev should not be used anymore after export_rdev(). This problem can be triggered by following test for mdadm at very low rate: New file: mdadm/tests/23rdev-lifetime devname=${dev0##*/} devt=`cat /sys/block/$devname/dev` pid="" runtime=2 clean_up_test() { pill -9 $pid echo clear > /sys/block/md0/md/array_state } trap 'clean_up_test' EXIT add_by_sysfs() { while true; do echo $devt > /sys/block/md0/md/new_dev done } remove_by_sysfs(){ while true; do echo remove > /sys/block/md0/md/dev-${devname}/state done } echo md0 > /sys/module/md_mod/parameters/new_array || die "create md0 failed" add_by_sysfs & pid="$pid $!" remove_by_sysfs & pid="$pid $!" sleep $runtime exit 0 Test cmd: ./test --save-logs --logdir=/tmp/ --keep-going --dev=loop --tests=23rdev-lifetime Test result: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0x6b6b6b6b6b6b6bcb: 0000 [#4] PREEMPT SMP CPU: 0 PID: 1292 Comm: test Tainted: G D W 6.5.0-rc2-00121-g01e55c376936 torvalds#562 RIP: 0010:md_wakeup_thread+0x9e/0x320 [md_mod] Call Trace: <TASK> mddev_unlock+0x1b6/0x310 [md_mod] rdev_attr_store+0xec/0x190 [md_mod] sysfs_kf_write+0x52/0x70 kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x19a/0x2a0 vfs_write+0x3b5/0x770 ksys_write+0x74/0x150 __x64_sys_write+0x22/0x30 do_syscall_64+0x40/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd Fix this problem by don't dereference mddev after export_rdev(). Fixes: 3ce94ce ("md: fix duplicate filename for rdev") Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <[email protected]>

Except for initial reference, mddev->kobject is referenced by rdev->kobject, and if the last rdev is freed, there is no guarantee that mddev is still valid. Hence mddev should not be used anymore after export_rdev(). This problem can be triggered by following test for mdadm at very low rate: New file: mdadm/tests/23rdev-lifetime devname=${dev0##*/} devt=`cat /sys/block/$devname/dev` pid="" runtime=2 clean_up_test() { pill -9 $pid echo clear > /sys/block/md0/md/array_state } trap 'clean_up_test' EXIT add_by_sysfs() { while true; do echo $devt > /sys/block/md0/md/new_dev done } remove_by_sysfs(){ while true; do echo remove > /sys/block/md0/md/dev-${devname}/state done } echo md0 > /sys/module/md_mod/parameters/new_array || die "create md0 failed" add_by_sysfs & pid="$pid $!" remove_by_sysfs & pid="$pid $!" sleep $runtime exit 0 Test cmd: ./test --save-logs --logdir=/tmp/ --keep-going --dev=loop --tests=23rdev-lifetime Test result: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0x6b6b6b6b6b6b6bcb: 0000 [#4] PREEMPT SMP CPU: 0 PID: 1292 Comm: test Tainted: G D W 6.5.0-rc2-00121-g01e55c376936 torvalds#562 RIP: 0010:md_wakeup_thread+0x9e/0x320 [md_mod] Call Trace: <TASK> mddev_unlock+0x1b6/0x310 [md_mod] rdev_attr_store+0xec/0x190 [md_mod] sysfs_kf_write+0x52/0x70 kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x19a/0x2a0 vfs_write+0x3b5/0x770 ksys_write+0x74/0x150 __x64_sys_write+0x22/0x30 do_syscall_64+0x40/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd Fix this problem by don't dereference mddev after export_rdev(). Fixes: 3ce94ce ("md: fix duplicate filename for rdev") Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]

Except for initial reference, mddev->kobject is referenced by rdev->kobject, and if the last rdev is freed, there is no guarantee that mddev is still valid. Hence mddev should not be used anymore after export_rdev(). This problem can be triggered by following test for mdadm at very low rate: New file: mdadm/tests/23rdev-lifetime devname=${dev0##*/} devt=`cat /sys/block/$devname/dev` pid="" runtime=2 clean_up_test() { pill -9 $pid echo clear > /sys/block/md0/md/array_state } trap 'clean_up_test' EXIT add_by_sysfs() { while true; do echo $devt > /sys/block/md0/md/new_dev done } remove_by_sysfs(){ while true; do echo remove > /sys/block/md0/md/dev-${devname}/state done } echo md0 > /sys/module/md_mod/parameters/new_array || die "create md0 failed" add_by_sysfs & pid="$pid $!" remove_by_sysfs & pid="$pid $!" sleep $runtime exit 0 Test cmd: ./test --save-logs --logdir=/tmp/ --keep-going --dev=loop --tests=23rdev-lifetime Test result: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0x6b6b6b6b6b6b6bcb: 0000 [#4] PREEMPT SMP CPU: 0 PID: 1292 Comm: test Tainted: G D W 6.5.0-rc2-00121-g01e55c376936 #562 RIP: 0010:md_wakeup_thread+0x9e/0x320 [md_mod] Call Trace: <TASK> mddev_unlock+0x1b6/0x310 [md_mod] rdev_attr_store+0xec/0x190 [md_mod] sysfs_kf_write+0x52/0x70 kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x19a/0x2a0 vfs_write+0x3b5/0x770 ksys_write+0x74/0x150 __x64_sys_write+0x22/0x30 do_syscall_64+0x40/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd Fix this problem by don't dereference mddev after export_rdev(). Fixes: 3ce94ce ("md: fix duplicate filename for rdev") Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]

[ Upstream commit 7deac11 ] Except for initial reference, mddev->kobject is referenced by rdev->kobject, and if the last rdev is freed, there is no guarantee that mddev is still valid. Hence mddev should not be used anymore after export_rdev(). This problem can be triggered by following test for mdadm at very low rate: New file: mdadm/tests/23rdev-lifetime devname=${dev0##*/} devt=`cat /sys/block/$devname/dev` pid="" runtime=2 clean_up_test() { pill -9 $pid echo clear > /sys/block/md0/md/array_state } trap 'clean_up_test' EXIT add_by_sysfs() { while true; do echo $devt > /sys/block/md0/md/new_dev done } remove_by_sysfs(){ while true; do echo remove > /sys/block/md0/md/dev-${devname}/state done } echo md0 > /sys/module/md_mod/parameters/new_array || die "create md0 failed" add_by_sysfs & pid="$pid $!" remove_by_sysfs & pid="$pid $!" sleep $runtime exit 0 Test cmd: ./test --save-logs --logdir=/tmp/ --keep-going --dev=loop --tests=23rdev-lifetime Test result: general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0x6b6b6b6b6b6b6bcb: 0000 [#4] PREEMPT SMP CPU: 0 PID: 1292 Comm: test Tainted: G D W 6.5.0-rc2-00121-g01e55c376936 torvalds#562 RIP: 0010:md_wakeup_thread+0x9e/0x320 [md_mod] Call Trace: <TASK> mddev_unlock+0x1b6/0x310 [md_mod] rdev_attr_store+0xec/0x190 [md_mod] sysfs_kf_write+0x52/0x70 kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x19a/0x2a0 vfs_write+0x3b5/0x770 ksys_write+0x74/0x150 __x64_sys_write+0x22/0x30 do_syscall_64+0x40/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd Fix this problem by don't dereference mddev after export_rdev(). Fixes: 3ce94ce ("md: fix duplicate filename for rdev") Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Song Liu <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected] Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>

Lockdep gives a false positive splat as it can't distinguish the lock which is taken by different IRQ descriptors from different IRQ chips that are organized in a way of a hierarchy: ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 6.12.0-rc5-next-20241101-00148-g9fabf8160b53 torvalds#562 Tainted: G W ------------------------------------------------------ modprobe/141 is trying to acquire lock: ffff899446947868 (intel_soc_pmic_bxtwc:502:(&bxtwc_regmap_config)->lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: regmap_update_bits_base+0x33/0x90 but task is already holding lock: ffff899446947c68 (&d->lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: __setup_irq+0x682/0x790 which lock already depends on the new lock. -> #3 (&d->lock){+.+.}-{4:4}: -> #2 (&desc->request_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}: -> #1 (ipclock){+.+.}-{4:4}: -> #0 (intel_soc_pmic_bxtwc:502:(&bxtwc_regmap_config)->lock){+.+.}-{4:4}: Chain exists of: intel_soc_pmic_bxtwc:502:(&bxtwc_regmap_config)->lock --> &desc->request_mutex --> &d->lock Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&d->lock); lock(&desc->request_mutex); lock(&d->lock); lock(intel_soc_pmic_bxtwc:502:(&bxtwc_regmap_config)->lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 3 locks held by modprobe/141: #0: ffff8994419368f8 (&dev->mutex){....}-{4:4}, at: __driver_attach+0xf6/0x250 #1: ffff89944690b250 (&desc->request_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: __setup_irq+0x1a2/0x790 #2: ffff899446947c68 (&d->lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: __setup_irq+0x682/0x790 Set a lockdep class when we map the IRQ so that it doesn't warn about a lockdep bug that doesn't exist. Fixes: 4af8be6 ("regmap: Convert regmap_irq to use irq_domain") Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>

Lockdep gives a false positive splat as it can't distinguish the lock which is taken by different IRQ descriptors from different IRQ chips that are organized in a way of a hierarchy: ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 6.12.0-rc5-next-20241101-00148-g9fabf8160b53 torvalds#562 Tainted: G W ------------------------------------------------------ modprobe/141 is trying to acquire lock: ffff899446947868 (intel_soc_pmic_bxtwc:502:(&bxtwc_regmap_config)->lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: regmap_update_bits_base+0x33/0x90 but task is already holding lock: ffff899446947c68 (&d->lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: __setup_irq+0x682/0x790 which lock already depends on the new lock. -> #3 (&d->lock){+.+.}-{4:4}: -> #2 (&desc->request_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}: -> #1 (ipclock){+.+.}-{4:4}: -> #0 (intel_soc_pmic_bxtwc:502:(&bxtwc_regmap_config)->lock){+.+.}-{4:4}: Chain exists of: intel_soc_pmic_bxtwc:502:(&bxtwc_regmap_config)->lock --> &desc->request_mutex --> &d->lock Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&d->lock); lock(&desc->request_mutex); lock(&d->lock); lock(intel_soc_pmic_bxtwc:502:(&bxtwc_regmap_config)->lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 3 locks held by modprobe/141: #0: ffff8994419368f8 (&dev->mutex){....}-{4:4}, at: __driver_attach+0xf6/0x250 #1: ffff89944690b250 (&desc->request_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: __setup_irq+0x1a2/0x790 #2: ffff899446947c68 (&d->lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: __setup_irq+0x682/0x790 Set a lockdep class when we map the IRQ so that it doesn't warn about a lockdep bug that doesn't exist. Fixes: 4af8be6 ("regmap: Convert regmap_irq to use irq_domain") Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> Link: https://patch.msgid.link/[email protected] Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <[email protected]>

[ Upstream commit 953e549 ] Lockdep gives a false positive splat as it can't distinguish the lock which is taken by different IRQ descriptors from different IRQ chips that are organized in a way of a hierarchy: ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 6.12.0-rc5-next-20241101-00148-g9fabf8160b53 torvalds#562 Tainted: G W ------------------------------------------------------ modprobe/141 is trying to acquire lock: ffff899446947868 (intel_soc_pmic_bxtwc:502:(&bxtwc_regmap_config)->lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: regmap_update_bits_base+0x33/0x90 but task is already holding lock: ffff899446947c68 (&d->lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: __setup_irq+0x682/0x790 which lock already depends on the new lock. -> #3 (&d->lock){+.+.}-{4:4}: -> #2 (&desc->request_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}: -> #1 (ipclock){+.+.}-{4:4}: -> #0 (intel_soc_pmic_bxtwc:502:(&bxtwc_regmap_config)->lock){+.+.}-{4:4}: Chain exists of: intel_soc_pmic_bxtwc:502:(&bxtwc_regmap_config)->lock --> &desc->request_mutex --> &d->lock Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&d->lock); lock(&desc->request_mutex); lock(&d->lock); lock(intel_soc_pmic_bxtwc:502:(&bxtwc_regmap_config)->lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 3 locks held by modprobe/141: #0: ffff8994419368f8 (&dev->mutex){....}-{4:4}, at: __driver_attach+0xf6/0x250 #1: ffff89944690b250 (&desc->request_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: __setup_irq+0x1a2/0x790 #2: ffff899446947c68 (&d->lock){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: __setup_irq+0x682/0x790 Set a lockdep class when we map the IRQ so that it doesn't warn about a lockdep bug that doesn't exist. Fixes: 4af8be6 ("regmap: Convert regmap_irq to use irq_domain") Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> Link: https://patch.msgid.link/[email protected] Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>

General code optimization

14d2a62

Update README

74c23ca

lyubchev changed the title ~~General code optimization~~ code made very faster Jun 18, 2018

Jesus approved these changes Jun 19, 2018

View reviewed changes

fr3fou approved these changes Jun 19, 2018

View reviewed changes

KamilLelonek approved these changes Jun 21, 2018 •

edited

Loading

View reviewed changes

lolxnn approved these changes Jun 30, 2018

View reviewed changes

DaviesX approved these changes Jun 30, 2018

View reviewed changes

ammarfaizi2 approved these changes Jun 30, 2018

View reviewed changes

offchan42 suggested changes Jul 3, 2018

View reviewed changes

pulsemod approved these changes Jul 3, 2018

View reviewed changes

S33G approved these changes Jul 6, 2018

View reviewed changes

andrewboie approved these changes Jul 7, 2018

View reviewed changes

CodingKoopa approved these changes Jul 13, 2018

View reviewed changes

mbasnillo approved these changes Jul 18, 2018

View reviewed changes

john20xdoe approved these changes Jul 18, 2018

View reviewed changes

haorenfsa approved these changes Jul 19, 2018

View reviewed changes

ojeda added a commit to ojeda/linux that referenced this pull request Nov 24, 2021

Merge pull request torvalds#562 from ojeda/make

540942e

`Makefile` cleanups

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

code made very faster #562

code made very faster #562

lyubchev commented Jun 18, 2018 •

edited

Loading

KernelPRBot commented Jun 18, 2018

fr3fou commented Jun 18, 2018

mm-git01 commented Jun 19, 2018

lolxnn commented Jun 19, 2018

sushant10 commented Jun 21, 2018

voidnull000 commented Jun 21, 2018

offchan42 commented Jul 3, 2018

offchan42 left a comment

joeydash commented Jul 8, 2018

dkluin commented Jul 11, 2018

arnavb commented Jul 14, 2018

john20xdoe left a comment

invalidsudo commented Jul 19, 2018

KenSharp commented Jul 22, 2018

gi097 commented Aug 8, 2018

code made very faster #562

code made very faster #562

Conversation

lyubchev commented Jun 18, 2018 • edited Loading

KernelPRBot commented Jun 18, 2018

How do I format my contribution?

Who do I send my contribution to?

How do I send my contribution?

How do I get help if I'm stuck?

I sent my patch - now what?

Further information

fr3fou commented Jun 18, 2018

mm-git01 commented Jun 19, 2018

lolxnn commented Jun 19, 2018

sushant10 commented Jun 21, 2018

voidnull000 commented Jun 21, 2018

offchan42 commented Jul 3, 2018

offchan42 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

joeydash commented Jul 8, 2018

dkluin commented Jul 11, 2018

arnavb commented Jul 14, 2018

john20xdoe left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

invalidsudo commented Jul 19, 2018

KenSharp commented Jul 22, 2018

gi097 commented Aug 8, 2018

lyubchev commented Jun 18, 2018 •

edited

Loading