public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKP <lkp@01.org>
Subject: Re: [lkp-robot] [fs] 3deb642f0d: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -8.8% regression
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 12:01:17 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180622110117.GU30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180622100014.GA12425@lst.de>

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 12:00:14PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> And a version with select() also covered:

For fuck sake, if you want vfs_poll() inlined, *make* *it* *inlined*.
Is there any reason for not doing that other than EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
fetish?  Because if there isn't, I would like to draw your attention
to the fact that _this_ pwecious inchewlekshul pwopewty can be trivially
open-coded by out-of-tree shite even if it happens to be non-GPL one.

>  					mask = vfs_poll(f.file, wait);
> +					if (f.file->f_op->poll) {

... not to mention that here you forgot to remove the call itself while
expanding it.

Said that, you are not attacking the worst part of it - it's a static
branch, not the considerably more costly indirect ones.  Remember when
I asked you about the price of those?  Method calls are costly.

Another problem with with ->get_poll_head() calling conventions is
that originally you wanted to return ERR_PTR(-mask) as a way to report
not needing to call ->poll_mask(); that got shot down since quite
a few of those don't fit into 12 bits that ERR_PTR() gives us.

IIRC, the real reason for non-constant ->get_poll_head() was the sockets,
with

static struct wait_queue_head *sock_get_poll_head(struct file *file,
                __poll_t events)
{
        struct socket *sock = file->private_data;

        if (!sock->ops->poll_mask)
                return NULL;
        sock_poll_busy_loop(sock, events);
        return sk_sleep(sock->sk); 
}

The first part isn't a problem (it is constant).  The second is
static inline void sock_poll_busy_loop(struct socket *sock, __poll_t events)
{
        if (sk_can_busy_loop(sock->sk) &&
            events && (events & POLL_BUSY_LOOP)) {
                /* once, only if requested by syscall */
                sk_busy_loop(sock->sk, 1);
        }
} 

and the third -

static inline wait_queue_head_t *sk_sleep(struct sock *sk)
{
        BUILD_BUG_ON(offsetof(struct socket_wq, wait) != 0);
        return &rcu_dereference_raw(sk->sk_wq)->wait; 
} 

Now, ->sk_wq is modified only in sock_init_data() and sock_graft();
the latter, IIRC, is ->accept() helper.  Do we ever call either of
those on a sock of already opened file?  IOW, is there any real
reason for socket ->get_poll_head() not to be constant, other
than wanting to keep POLL_BUSY_LOOP handling out of ->poll_mask()?
I agree that POLL_BUSY_LOOP is ugly as hell, but you *still* have
sock_poll_mask() not free from it...

  reply	other threads:[~2018-06-22 11:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-06-22  8:27 [lkp-robot] [fs] 3deb642f0d: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -8.8% regression kernel test robot
2018-06-22  9:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-06-22  9:56   ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-22 10:00     ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-22 11:01       ` Al Viro [this message]
2018-06-22 11:53         ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-22 11:56           ` Al Viro
2018-06-22 12:07             ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-22 12:17               ` Al Viro
2018-06-22 12:33                 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-22 12:29                   ` Al Viro
2018-06-22 19:06         ` Sean Paul
2018-06-22 10:02     ` Linus Torvalds
2018-06-22 10:05       ` Linus Torvalds
2018-06-22 15:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-22 15:14   ` Al Viro
2018-06-22 15:28     ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-22 16:18       ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-22 20:02         ` Al Viro
2018-06-23  7:15           ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-26  6:03   ` Ye Xiaolong
2018-06-27  7:07     ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-06-28  0:38       ` Ye Xiaolong
2018-06-28 13:38         ` Christoph Hellwig

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=20180622110117.GU30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
    --to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lkp@01.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=xiaolong.ye@intel.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox