cocci.inria.fr archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
To: Denis Efremov <efremov@linux.com>, Coccinelle <cocci@systeme.lip6.fr>
Cc: Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
	Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr>,
	Nicolas Palix <nicolas.palix@imag.fr>,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr>,
	Alexander Popov <alex.popov@linux.com>
Subject: Re: [Cocci] Determination of an usage statistic for memory allocation calls
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2020 18:00:10 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2774601.u91sIFNy1E@sonne> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3528117.7ODa3CK5J5@sonne>

> …
> > +    E = \(kmalloc\|kzalloc\|krealloc\|kcalloc\|
> > +          kmalloc_node\|kzalloc_node\|kmalloc_array\|
> > +          kmalloc_array_node\|kcalloc_node\)(...)@kok
> …
> 
> How do you think about the possibility for any adjustments according to the order
> of the mentioned function names in proposed disjunctions for the semantic patch language?


I would like to share another source code analysis approach.
I hope that this contribution can trigger further helpful software development ideas.


@initialize:python@
@@
import sys

def write_identifier(source, call):
    names = []
    for x in source:
       names.append(call)

    sys.stdout.write("\n".join(names) + "\n")

@find1@
expression e;
identifier call, x;
position pos;
type rt;
@@
 rt x(...)
 {
 <+...
 e =@pos
(kzalloc@call
|kmalloc@call
|kcalloc@call
|kmalloc_array@call
|kmemdup@call
|kstrdup@call
|vmalloc@call
|vzalloc@call
|kzalloc_node@call
|kvmalloc@call
|krealloc@call
|kmalloc_node@call
|kcalloc_node@call
|__vmalloc@call
|vmalloc_user@call
|vzalloc_node@call
|vmalloc_32@call
|__vmalloc_node_range@call
|vmalloc_node@call
|kmalloc_array_node@call
|__vmalloc_node@call
|vmalloc_32_user@call
|vmalloc_exec@call
)(...)
 ...+>
 }

@script:python collection1@
call << find1.call;
place << find1.pos;
@@
write_identifier(place, call)

@find2@
identifier call, var, x;
position pos;
type rt, vt;
@@
 rt x(...)
 {
 <+...
 vt var =@pos
(kzalloc@call
|kmalloc@call
|kcalloc@call
|kmalloc_array@call
|kmemdup@call
|kstrdup@call
|vmalloc@call
|vzalloc@call
|kzalloc_node@call
|kvmalloc@call
|krealloc@call
|kmalloc_node@call
|kcalloc_node@call
|__vmalloc@call
|vmalloc_user@call
|vzalloc_node@call
|vmalloc_32@call
|__vmalloc_node_range@call
|vmalloc_node@call
|kmalloc_array_node@call
|__vmalloc_node@call
|vmalloc_32_user@call
|vmalloc_exec@call
)(...);
 ...+>
 }

@script:python collection2@
call << find2.call;
place << find2.pos;
@@
write_identifier(place, call)


Test result:
elfring@Sonne:~/Projekte/Linux/next-patched> git checkout next-20201016 && XX=$(date) && time spatch --timeout 23 --python python3 --jobs 4 --chunksize 1 --include-headers --no-includes --dir . ~/Projekte/Coccinelle/janitor/report_memory_allocation_calls4.cocci 2> ~/Projekte/Bau/Linux/scripts/Coccinelle/call_checks/20201016/report_memory_allocation_calls4-errors.txt | echo "$(echo 'call' && cat)" | csvsql --query 'select call, count(*) from stdin group by call order by count(*) desc'; YY=$(date) && echo "$XX | $YY"
…
call,count(*)
kzalloc,12652
kmalloc,4902
kcalloc,2564
kmalloc_array,859
kmemdup,797
kstrdup,469
vmalloc,405
vzalloc,359
kzalloc_node,177
kvmalloc,154
krealloc,151
kmalloc_node,49
kcalloc_node,44
__vmalloc,34
vmalloc_user,28
vzalloc_node,21
vmalloc_32,9
__vmalloc_node_range,8
vmalloc_node,7
kmalloc_array_node,5
__vmalloc_node,4
vmalloc_32_user,1

real	22m25,049s
user	84m11,257s
sys	0m12,168s
So 18. Okt 16:55:08 CEST 2020 | So 18. Okt 17:17:33 CEST 2020


The log file contains the information “9211 files match”.
Can such facts influence the specification of efficient SmPL disjunctions another bit?

Regards,
Markus


_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
Cocci@systeme.lip6.fr
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-10-18 16:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-10-16  9:46 [Cocci] [PATCH v8] coccinelle: api: add kfree_mismatch script Markus Elfring
2020-10-16 10:07 ` Julia Lawall
2020-10-16 10:56   ` Markus Elfring
2020-10-18 16:00 ` Markus Elfring [this message]
2020-10-18 16:20   ` [Cocci] Determination of an usage statistic for memory allocation calls Julia Lawall
2020-10-18 16:46     ` Markus Elfring

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=2774601.u91sIFNy1E@sonne \
    --to=markus.elfring@web.de \
    --cc=Gilles.Muller@lip6.fr \
    --cc=Julia.Lawall@lip6.fr \
    --cc=alex.popov@linux.com \
    --cc=cocci@systeme.lip6.fr \
    --cc=efremov@linux.com \
    --cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=michal.lkml@markovi.net \
    --cc=nicolas.palix@imag.fr \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).