Re: [PATCH 2/8] powerpc/signal: Add unsafe_copy_{vsx,fpr}_from_user()

["Christopher M. Riedl" <cmr@codefail.de>]

On Sat Feb 6, 2021 at 10:32 AM CST, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>
> Le 20/10/2020 à 04:01, Christopher M. Riedl a écrit :
> > On Fri Oct 16, 2020 at 10:48 AM CDT, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Le 15/10/2020 à 17:01, Christopher M. Riedl a écrit :
> >>> Reuse the "safe" implementation from signal.c except for calling
> >>> unsafe_copy_from_user() to copy into a local buffer. Unlike the
> >>> unsafe_copy_{vsx,fpr}_to_user() functions the "copy from" functions
> >>> cannot use unsafe_get_user() directly to bypass the local buffer since
> >>> doing so significantly reduces signal handling performance.
> >>
> >> Why can't the functions use unsafe_get_user(), why does it significantly
> >> reduces signal handling
> >> performance ? How much significant ? I would expect that not going
> >> through an intermediate memory
> >> area would be more efficient
> >>
> > 
> > Here is a comparison, 'unsafe-signal64-regs' avoids the intermediate buffer:
> > 
> > 	|                      | hash   | radix  |
> > 	| -------------------- | ------ | ------ |
> > 	| linuxppc/next        | 289014 | 158408 |
> > 	| unsafe-signal64      | 298506 | 253053 |
> > 	| unsafe-signal64-regs | 254898 | 220831 |
> > 
> > I have not figured out the 'why' yet. As you mentioned in your series,
> > technically calling __copy_tofrom_user() is overkill for these
> > operations. The only obvious difference between unsafe_put_user() and
> > unsafe_get_user() is that we don't have asm-goto for the 'get' variant.
> > Instead we wrap with unsafe_op_wrap() which inserts a conditional and
> > then goto to the label.
> > 
> > Implemenations:
> > 
> > 	#define unsafe_copy_fpr_from_user(task, from, label)   do {            \
> > 	       struct task_struct *__t = task;                                 \
> > 	       u64 __user *buf = (u64 __user *)from;                           \
> > 	       int i;                                                          \
> > 									       \
> > 	       for (i = 0; i < ELF_NFPREG - 1; i++)                            \
> > 		       unsafe_get_user(__t->thread.TS_FPR(i), &buf[i], label); \
> > 	       unsafe_get_user(__t->thread.fp_state.fpscr, &buf[i], label);    \
> > 	} while (0)
> > 
> > 	#define unsafe_copy_vsx_from_user(task, from, label)   do {            \
> > 	       struct task_struct *__t = task;                                 \
> > 	       u64 __user *buf = (u64 __user *)from;                           \
> > 	       int i;                                                          \
> > 									       \
> > 	       for (i = 0; i < ELF_NVSRHALFREG ; i++)                          \
> > 		       unsafe_get_user(__t->thread.fp_state.fpr[i][TS_VSRLOWOFFSET], \
> > 				       &buf[i], label);                        \
> > 	} while (0)
> > 
>
> Do you have CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING or CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP enabled in
> your config ?

I don't have these set in my config (ppc64le_defconfig). I think I
figured this out - the reason for the lower signal throughput is the
barrier_nospec() in __get_user_nocheck(). When looping we incur that
cost on every iteration. Commenting it out results in signal performance
of ~316K w/ hash on the unsafe-signal64-regs branch. Obviously the
barrier is there for a reason but it is quite costly.

This also explains why the copy_{fpr,vsx}_to_user() direction does not
suffer from the slowdown because there is no need for barrier_nospec().
>
> If yes, could you try together with the patch from Alexey
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/patch/20210204121612.32721-1-aik@ozlabs.ru/
> ?
>
> Thanks
> Christophe