Function dmi_matches can me made a bit faster:

* The documented purpose of dmi_initialized is to catch too early
  calls to dmi_check_system(). I'm not fully convinced it justifies
  slowing down the initialization of all systems out there, but at
  least the check should not have been moved from dmi_check_system()
  to dmi_matches(). dmi_matches() is being called for every entry of
  the table passed to dmi_check_system(), causing the same redundant
  check to be performed again and again. So move it back to
  dmi_check_system(), reverting this specific portion of commit
  d7b1956fed33 ("DMI: Introduce dmi_first_match to make the interface
  more flexible").

* Don't check for the exact_match flag again when we already know its
  value.

Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <jdelv...@suse.de>
Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nik...@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@intel.com>
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com>
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jgar...@redhat.com>
---
Regarding dmi_initialized, I don't think it makes sense to check for
a possible bad initialization order at run time on every system when
it is all decided at build time. If a developer introduces a new call
to dmi_check_system() and it is too early in the initialization
sequence, I believe he/she would notice upon first testing, and a
comment to his/her intention in the source code would serve the same
purpose without the worldwide performance penalty. Would anyone
object to such a change?

 drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c |   19 +++++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

--- linux-4.12.orig/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c 2017-07-27 08:15:38.283519194 
+0200
+++ linux-4.12/drivers/firmware/dmi_scan.c      2017-07-27 08:26:23.013053058 
+0200
@@ -784,19 +784,20 @@ static bool dmi_matches(const struct dmi
 {
        int i;
 
-       WARN(!dmi_initialized, KERN_ERR "dmi check: not initialized yet.\n");
-
        for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(dmi->matches); i++) {
                int s = dmi->matches[i].slot;
                if (s == DMI_NONE)
                        break;
                if (dmi_ident[s]) {
-                       if (!dmi->matches[i].exact_match &&
-                           strstr(dmi_ident[s], dmi->matches[i].substr))
-                               continue;
-                       else if (dmi->matches[i].exact_match &&
-                                !strcmp(dmi_ident[s], dmi->matches[i].substr))
-                               continue;
+                       if (dmi->matches[i].exact_match) {
+                               if (!strcmp(dmi_ident[s],
+                                           dmi->matches[i].substr))
+                                       continue;
+                       } else {
+                               if (strstr(dmi_ident[s],
+                                          dmi->matches[i].substr))
+                                       continue;
+                       }
                }
 
                /* No match */
@@ -832,6 +833,8 @@ int dmi_check_system(const struct dmi_sy
        int count = 0;
        const struct dmi_system_id *d;
 
+       WARN(!dmi_initialized, KERN_ERR "dmi check: not initialized yet.\n");
+
        for (d = list; !dmi_is_end_of_table(d); d++)
                if (dmi_matches(d)) {
                        count++;

-- 
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support

Reply via email to