Re: [Cocci] Determination of an usage statistic for memory allocation calls

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