From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH next 0/3] iov: Optimise user copies
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 10:08:51 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250322100851.39c9eb33@pumpkin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=whs5oVkHMrNP=xkJP4Z4fObn=6Mz3fYp4wWMNQWtyjo9w@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 16:35:52 -0700
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 at 15:46, David Laight <david.laight.linux@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > The speculation barrier in access_ok() is expensive.
> >
> > The first patch removes the initial checks when reading the iovec[].
> > The checks are repeated before the actual copy.
> >
> > The second patch uses 'user address masking' if supported.
> >
> > The third removes a lot of code for single entry iovec[].
>
> Ack, except I'd really like to see numbers for things that claim to
> remove expensive stuff.
Testing readv() of /dev/zero or writev() of /dev/null probably show
most gain.
I did do some allmodconfig builds and got no change, but I might have the
lfence compiled out of access_ok().
In any case kernel builds are pretty much user space limited.
David
>
> But yeah, the patches look sane.
>
> Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-22 10:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-21 22:45 [PATCH next 0/3] iov: Optimise user copies David Laight
2025-03-21 22:45 ` [PATCH next 1/3] iov: Remove access_ok() from import_iovec() David Laight
2025-03-21 22:45 ` [PATCH next 2/3] iov: Use masked user accesses David Laight
2025-03-21 22:45 ` [PATCH next 3/3] iov: Optimise __import_iovec_ubuf() David Laight
2025-03-21 23:35 ` [PATCH next 0/3] iov: Optimise user copies Linus Torvalds
2025-03-22 10:08 ` David Laight [this message]
2025-03-22 22:37 ` David Laight
2025-03-29 11:31 ` David Laight
2025-03-22 14:36 ` Jens Axboe
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=20250322100851.39c9eb33@pumpkin \
--to=david.laight.linux@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.