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 9B1E3CCF9E0 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2025 05:33:42 +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-Type:Cc:To:From: Subject:Message-ID:References:Mime-Version:In-Reply-To:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=978k93bL9MxlYRkaTWrSvPo0X/ixK1lZJ0FCxsOFego=; b=w58GAggTizaXGTZ9rDVicfCH6l RnrEEl7zmkwFAjerQvDHKLMI3QweDOCbC4PioCl7u6dv4O3mRYy2yRDYy0X1+dr9JKB7bSdR8fH7x aW7KDEywuaDzJtRaTK5bFJ1rjKVIx6ktxG7QzIbgUfZvShqoBRBQX1VMxohvIQdrjHKdzizGL1YyT TX9ZG0C49GpuYYnb3upaRoS2KJF7aci5H8U6ZMgB+OJWhR9MfsJlGrJkxJLcS3kTo9SLjDekGIYM2 MSbT2HkKlz2Sf3XFGcl8itE4phZDv6QMrb//6p5rxpySgAO72aGJg39C7X2mj+2cdEUi1Yl5xOfbs KwD1z8vQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1vDcKu-0000000FGpH-20yB; Tue, 28 Oct 2025 05:33:36 +0000 Received: from mail-pj1-x104a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::104a]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1vDcKr-0000000FGnb-3BOP for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2025 05:33:35 +0000 Received: by mail-pj1-x104a.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-33d75897745so13025641a91.0 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2025 22:33:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1761629612; x=1762234412; darn=lists.infradead.org; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=978k93bL9MxlYRkaTWrSvPo0X/ixK1lZJ0FCxsOFego=; b=A47tz3i//SGCwR/+cn4MJsiMi6DCjluk4i/88FJ/DhF731qpUeW6PAejde6gw8fb/h rCbsXah7q5N7HMoalTcgXbYl4jiLKTlLn380//eDQ3CCgTlOzRBWW9M0xCR1Oxg1mttb EqHe9galdFygNKrLyYPeuTJJyUKWKL/goT58iFO3iKjSpeXiZkaTODEbWANh8h6QAZ6U AhVVChJNDkBKwf+rackHjMxiLXLNfohKqZ3hBwi2JlYxfImE7n6PgjcM92W4DY2FalHZ +GXz+U5XicCcPVIQFZaVLFRuDRCMYGkgAuAXebVFXxdyXD2m/h7ELhJrk/9XlfbsFuaR pI9w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1761629612; x=1762234412; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=978k93bL9MxlYRkaTWrSvPo0X/ixK1lZJ0FCxsOFego=; b=nxqiZfymeknTILsUxcicWS4g/MKn6tlZWJjuzqfyM0bjVC2xrikSkxbD0fUQfzO1sz BlJ5Wofp1AZD2kubxim+Xff5Sp3UupWn0TIIZJHkRDI7SS+K70ZNvcIQmzlud6GVrScB 4urbNVa//nDVzKtGI8twfipyEmkTb2z0HI6SCsxHlhdOfqW3g/u86n78lYdlN8KIolTA kyEz1FntLUhA4zptrmr4VlSDb0UkvzRj6CHW80NYsW/+83mIO7OqiJJjx2CPDOoWad0w ff0JoCTY3JaWy+TcxE4dLxW2ET29bJiOjLjOOgLTa0JRCd8rEk43Vv/MNzmWjJa1O9XI f7gg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCX43BKMe2c7QVkWLlpU5q4dQ2ljAMNk+Twfkqfg/HzbbYDCZzJx2C2Me6JnieF6GEZzFrLSweLFU1LMzMcC+iUt@lists.infradead.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyR+PYanUaHhRywQz2pTgGR2ZeyX0bPxzWMOEL+DSEJClM1lWJy B+7t5FVCvVqBn8FstAg4CZERfnLndfMKvV7V67YRjAqMHjzBHvEYgezcNWAZNvZYQbp2e394b7P CFssZMA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEgPd1Vro8jar4YuvbY14ALahZ9RGAW96D7MCTDGrIDbCO1GDP/qete02Qehy0msaJmFvHad1jiwWY= X-Received: from pjxx4.prod.google.com ([2002:a17:90b:58c4:b0:33d:98cb:883b]) (user=kuniyu job=prod-delivery.src-stubby-dispatcher) by 2002:a17:903:2290:b0:273:ab5f:a507 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-294cb394740mr35360685ad.21.1761629612502; Mon, 27 Oct 2025 22:33:32 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 05:32:13 +0000 In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 References: X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.51.1.838.g19442a804e-goog Message-ID: <20251028053330.2391078-1-kuniyu@google.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] epoll: Use __user_write_access_begin() and unsafe_put_user() in epoll_put_uevent(). From: Kuniyuki Iwashima To: dave.hansen@intel.com Cc: 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, kuniyu@google.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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20251027_223333_825351_B6E27A4A X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 19.30 ) 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 From: Dave Hansen Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 07:05:50 -0700 > 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. Sorry for the late! I rebased on 19ab0a22efbd and tested 4 versions on AMD EPYC 7B12 machine: 1) Base 19ab0a22efbd 2) masked_user_access_begin() -> 97% pps and 96% calls of ep_try_send_events() 3) user_write_access_begin() (Dave's diff above) (NEW) -> 102.2% pps and 103% calls of ep_try_send_events() 4) __user_write_access_begin() (This patch) -> 102.4% pps and 103% calls of ep_try_send_events(). Interestingly user_write_access_begin() was as fast as __user_write_access_begin() ! Also, as with the previous result, masked_user_access_begin() was the worst somehow. So, I'll drop patch 1 and post v2 with user_write_access_begin(). Thank you! 1) Base (19ab0a22efbd) # nstat > /dev/null; sleep 10; nstat | grep -i udp Udp6InDatagrams 2184011 0.0 @ep_try_send_events_ns: [256, 512) 2796601 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@| [512, 1K) 627863 |@@@@@@@@@@@ | [1K, 2K) 166403 |@@@ | [2K, 4K) 10437 | | [4K, 8K) 1396 | | [8K, 16K) 116 | | 2) masked_user_access_begin() + masked_user_access_begin() 97% pps compared to 1). 96% calls of ep_try_send_events(). # nstat > /dev/null; sleep 10; nstat | grep -i udp Udp6InDatagrams 2120498 0.0 @ep_try_send_events_ns: [256, 512) 2690803 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@| [512, 1K) 533750 |@@@@@@@@@@ | [1K, 2K) 225969 |@@@@ | [2K, 4K) 35176 | | [4K, 8K) 2428 | | [8K, 16K) 199 | | 3) user_write_access_begin() 102.2% pps compared to 1). 103% calls of ep_try_send_events(). # nstat > /dev/null; sleep 10; nstat | grep -i udp Udp6InDatagrams 2232730 0.0 @ep_try_send_events_ns: [256, 512) 2900655 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@| [512, 1K) 622045 |@@@@@@@@@@@ | [1K, 2K) 172831 |@@@ | [2K, 4K) 17687 | | [4K, 8K) 1103 | | [8K, 16K) 174 | | 4) __user_write_access_begin() 102.4% pps compared to 1). 103% calls of ep_try_send_events(). # nstat > /dev/null; sleep 10; nstat | grep -i udp Udp6InDatagrams 2238524 0.0 @ep_try_send_events_ns: [256, 512) 2906752 |@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@| [512, 1K) 630199 |@@@@@@@@@@@ | [1K, 2K) 161741 |@@ | [2K, 4K) 17141 | | [4K, 8K) 1041 | | [8K, 16K) 61 | |