From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EA47CCD1BF for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2025 14:47:30 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To: From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=JU+wnuo2Z/1XtZ6g63nPnwv0VWCw8ghGKwTmMdWFqpg=; b=RG/7wZixDwZoH97ExC88xxkZti qE6L0UDEw5fX/UDsOgRoJ7EObFM0bCDfooKU9Xw1OW5/X41vXlmHi63tWfd4dMMGbgZiVsaUTWdUT P7hIMnRz5w5wBenbgqQTqP8xq/8vk8rNF99Su4Wmaw2Z1TsQaAPXdGND3QQa0BcAu9JkvTu1/KMM4 KReBRvxnReL680TAqJWPF8HTF6rqHw6d/VAu+HuKmRqqOMGmVot5X38BHSuEPgPx7j5oPgXPWA61r DJ22cL2U5C5JImYryy445Ib5+vILQGVjAWBQjGi5hTQ0YHJQF0PIqWOEsIz7Rjb58E+G1YFFzYLLf nnVcxq2g==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1vCJ4e-00000009hVl-2aDa; Fri, 24 Oct 2025 14:47:24 +0000 Received: from mail-wr1-x436.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::436]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1vCJ4c-00000009hUQ-29E1 for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2025 14:47:23 +0000 Received: by mail-wr1-x436.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-4270491e9easo1602696f8f.2 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2025 07:47:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1761317241; x=1761922041; darn=lists.infradead.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=JU+wnuo2Z/1XtZ6g63nPnwv0VWCw8ghGKwTmMdWFqpg=; b=UvSky8xDQrQvkOuQ19bRryibQcuZtF9FFmn65yfaQZiIWv7FggceOuPQbQTYzNnE3W IYT3SZ+jBulRzPaETjcTx3bxQyxPy/BJ8gPAXlqFImJ5hrR0rrKXQK5nBlPbLNw0vK2v rF0xeaPI2CQFClo58rncpqJ5NRykcETYbM+nmWdfo76uJCtEtgHyFT6lwMi3EITVrva+ clEig3Jb9ysX93VkXwOSI7KPdsdm2vObBpekZgLYA5VQGLBwSmu6skGD/g4ZP/kvhE/H T1a8SIp2SUSgQ941rFOyN/sgkOpODpkCIiUDXEgQ1RLErkA+0Z5joo3XmRZ49gsXj2XP 56cQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1761317241; x=1761922041; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=JU+wnuo2Z/1XtZ6g63nPnwv0VWCw8ghGKwTmMdWFqpg=; b=UbGDQ/PDS7K5AgjBfC2Ok45ecUY9QGqtHC2f3rcysFhY4J6fnbbSQ5yDqO2i9VFHXU 8ZU4+i9lMAzHL20vyGY8CB5ik7y2nd9+dm/u9tMfHfZAh6PqLkhAnOhYJzfaC90wU+oh juAOBC7NHnjHslzUZfw6SI0o+7ULzmSlc93sX9id1vIKd/7H6WBbVa1hM5jaBFQ6rbZg tEGY0u/kk8rOx5jy4EJLOAB/yNwOIQAE8vaxXvT2/XDZ5HGC1y04cQSN4ChcDiAbpdAv QS2qeoOgWmSE+fBAWHRHqQ80m1GcL6gA4vcHWSRTvZVAOEEvq9FaPUma8pJ0T5ILOUht TV0A== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVrGKuaFdN5StjTWIgUPRZQhvo3B9nKvk54ykniVq1df3O5nYOj2MTiEoWCb5vwmCe5GDqHGpLQdSF3HxcAM56g@lists.infradead.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz31T/7U9MN0UvREhsm139LtNm8mHnDg/uGBVEaAn6AneZdPqRU RkWy3J4tvAxBmiRL4cHo+xhOYDk4K68yZgZfAmByjTljel9ycWprlZEH0tEagA== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncstu/XekBnyx3twNPyiE7swUrjdJsmoq7Io7BTp/lKoTkKu+qKzzgUXy5AL7nS WAlzsp3x1CEGjt7BLulY6YoL0B1X4DuCt9seXug6/vE2xCujLi8QRY/WrL5gUJ75qOZAjUaUMP2 9oroZT3kbAy/oCThtky8zRRlPItPFsCz1ZySSGdLKjb0FER5Ktd7NWQqOmmu4ZNT5EcwpQk3txK CZXbSXWTMolgow5L3i7pEyb3jY6H1HV9BHHZ5B3HgiSPlGfhKk4N77tBwZOMWNNsFVYY9ikYB6Y c8JypXVpxDWM0EdygK/4WxmmphFkNpVjSHHO5oAuTArS0NL4183DQF8nw4tM7xv85BDgcoJJsTh WLweh6CWXAz/bZrX1AHvw0Aad4k8sfTSGbVZAO/I0GiU6D/dPOXbaXgffq41Ydvk/8GfSLN8lPU suk6iCq650XO/aCJANqT9Wrzrv2zLh4lCfrBQ35+K00zdyurUl/W5k X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHTEaO13+9fHR05oni62pNnB6SFZLHntJBdSUcQjV2Scfibpu0XNA7qJvhSpMY2WZf1fNFglQ== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:584f:0:b0:428:52d8:9680 with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-42852d89820mr8617704f8f.18.1761317240510; Fri, 24 Oct 2025 07:47:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pumpkin (82-69-66-36.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk. [82.69.66.36]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-429932cbbb0sm514747f8f.35.2025.10.24.07.47.19 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 24 Oct 2025 07:47:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 15:47:15 +0100 From: David Laight To: Dave Hansen Cc: Kuniyuki Iwashima , alex@ghiti.fr, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, axboe@kernel.dk, bp@alien8.de, brauner@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, edumazet@google.com, hpa@zytor.com, kuni1840@gmail.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, maddy@linux.ibm.com, mingo@redhat.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, npiggin@gmail.com, palmer@dabbelt.com, pjw@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, will@kernel.org, x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] epoll: Use __user_write_access_begin() and unsafe_put_user() in epoll_put_uevent(). Message-ID: <20251024154715.577258ef@pumpkin> In-Reply-To: References: <0bfa4895-727b-407b-90d2-7d54b9bd4910@intel.com> <20251024051653.66329-1-kuniyu@google.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.38; arm-unknown-linux-gnueabihf) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20251024_074722_569788_D7C4B657 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 23.49 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, 24 Oct 2025 07:05:50 -0700 Dave Hansen wrote: > On 10/23/25 22:16, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote: > >> This makes me nervous. The access_ok() check is quite a distance away. > >> I'd kinda want to see some performance numbers before doing this. Is > >> removing a single access_ok() even measurable? > > I noticed I made a typo in commit message, s/tcp_rr/udp_rr/. > > > > epoll_put_uevent() can be called multiple times in a single > > epoll_wait(), and we can see 1.7% more pps on UDP even when > > 1 thread has 1000 sockets only: > > > > server: $ udp_rr --nolog -6 -F 1000 -T 1 -l 3600 > > client: $ udp_rr --nolog -6 -F 1000 -T 256 -l 3600 -c -H $SERVER > > server: $ nstat > /dev/null; sleep 10; nstat | grep -i udp > > > > Without patch (2 stac/clac): > > Udp6InDatagrams 2205209 0.0 > > > > With patch (1 stac/clac): > > Udp6InDatagrams 2242602 0.0 > > I'm totally with you about removing a stac/clac: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250228203722.CAEB63AC@davehans-spike.ostc.intel.com/ > > The thing I'm worried about is having the access_ok() so distant > from the unsafe_put_user(). I'm wondering if this: > > - __user_write_access_begin(uevent, sizeof(*uevent)); > + if (!user_write_access_begin(uevent, sizeof(*uevent)) > + return NULL; > unsafe_put_user(revents, &uevent->events, efault); > unsafe_put_user(data, &uevent->data, efault); > user_access_end(); > > is measurably slower than what was in your series. If it is > not measurably slower, then the series gets simpler because it > does not need to refactor user_write_access_begin(). It also ends > up more obviously correct because the access check is closer to > the unsafe_put_user() calls. > > Also, the extra access_ok() is *much* cheaper than stac/clac. access_ok() does contain a conditional branch - just waiting for the misprediction penalty (say 20 clocks). OTOH you shouldn't get that more that twice for the loop. I'm pretty sure access_ok() itself contains an lfence - needed for reads. But that ought to be absent from user_write_access_begin(). The 'masked' version uses alu operations (on x86-64) and don't need lfence (or anything else) and don't contain a mispredictable branch. They should be faster than the above - unless the code has serious register pressure and too much gets spilled to stack. The timings may also depend on the cpu you are using. I'm sure I remember some of the very recent ones having much faster stac/clac and/or lfence. David >