Re: [PATCH] kernel/entry: Remove some redundancy checks on syscall works

[Khalid Ali]

On Wed, Jun 11 2025 at 11:43, Khalid Ali wrote:
> > There is a redundant checks of thread syscall work.

> Not really.
>
> >  After we read thread syscall work we are checking the work bits using
>
> We are doing nothing. Please write your changelogs in imperative mood
> and do not try to impersonate code.

Sorry, i guess my english sucks.

> > SYSCALL_WORK_ENTER and SYSCALL_WORK_EXIT on syscall entry and exit
> > respectively, and at the same time syscall_trace_enter() and
> > syscall_exit_work() checking bits one by one, the bits we already checked.
> > This is redundancy. So either we need to check the work bits one by one as I
> > did, or check as whole. On my prespective, i think the way code is
> > implemented now checking work bits one by one is simpler and gives us
> > more granular control.

> That's just wrong and absolutely not redundant. Care to look at the
> definition of SYSCALL_WORK_ENTER:
>
> #define SYSCALL_WORK_ENTER	(SYSCALL_WORK_SECCOMP |			\
>				 SYSCALL_WORK_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT |	\
>				 SYSCALL_WORK_SYSCALL_TRACE |		\
>				 SYSCALL_WORK_SYSCALL_EMU |		\
>				 SYSCALL_WORK_SYSCALL_AUDIT |		\
>				 SYSCALL_WORK_SYSCALL_USER_DISPATCH |	\
>				 ARCH_SYSCALL_WORK_ENTER)
>
> So this initial check avoids:
>
>    1) Doing an unconditional out of line call
>
>    2) Checking bit for bit to figure out that there is none set.
>
> Same applies for SYSCALL_WORK_EXIT.
>
> Your change neither makes anything simpler nor provides more granular
> control.
>
> All it does is adding overhead and therefore guaranteed to introduce a
> performance regression.
>
> Not going to happen.
>
> Thanks,
>
>        tglx
Thanks, for the response and noted all your points, however i spotted some minor details also:

First if we are talking about performance then we may need likely() on SYSCALL_WORK_ENTER since 
the probability of condition evaluating as true is very high.

Second syscall_enter_audit() missing SYSCALL_WORK_SYSCALL_AUDIT	evaluation, aren't we supposed to call
it only if SYSCALL_WORK_SYSCALL_AUDIT is set?

Should i create another patch fixing these two points, of course if i am right?

Thanks, Khalid Ali