Re: [PATCH 2/3] audit: annotate branch direction for audit_in_mask()

On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 4:20 PM Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora(a)oracle.com&gt; wrote: > Paul Moore <paul(a)paul-moore.com&gt; writes: > > I generally dislike merging likely()/unlikely() additions to code > > paths that can have varying levels of performance depending on runtime > > configuration. > > I think that's fair, and in this particular case the benchmark is quite > contrived. > > But, just to elaborate a bit more on why that unlikely() clause made > sense to me: it seems to me that audit typically would be triggered for > control syscalls and the ratio between control and non-control ones > would be fairly lopsided. I understand, and there is definitely some precedence in the audit code for using likely()/unlikely() in a manner similar as you described, but I'll refer to my previous comments - it's not something I like. As a general rule, aside from the unlikely() calls in the audit wrappers present in include/linux/audit.h I would suggest not adding any new likely()/unlikely() calls. > Let me see if I can rewrite the conditional in a different way to get a > similar effect but I suspect that might be even more compiler dependent. I am okay with ordering conditionals to make the common case the short-circuit case.

> Also, let me run the audit-testsuite this time. Is there a good test > there that you would recommend that might serve as a more representative > workload? Probably not. The audit-testsuite is intended to be a quick, easy to run regression test that can be used by developers to help reduce audit breakage. It is not representative of any particular workload, and is definitely not comprehensive (it is woefully lacking in several areas unfortunately).