Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] random: convert to using iters, for Al Viro

Jens Axboe
2022-05-20T15:58:39Z

On 5/20/22 9:55 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 09:44:25AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Ran 32, 1k, 4k here and it does seem to be down aboout 3%. Which is
>> definitely bigger than I expected, particularly for larger reads. If
>> anything, the 32b read seems comparably better than eg 1k or 4k, which
>> is also unexpected. Let me do a bit of profiling to see what is up.
>
> Something to keep in mind wrt 32b is that for complicated crypto
> reasons, the function has this logic:
>
> - If len <= 32, generate one 64 byte block and give <= 32 bytes of it to
> the caller.
>
> - If len > 32, generate one 64 byte block, but give 0 of it to the
> caller. Then generate ?len/64? blocks for the caller.
>
> Put together, this means:
>
> - 1..32, 1 block
> - 33..64, 2 blocks
> - 65..128, 3 blocks
> - 129..196, 4 blocks
>
> So you get this sort of shelf where the amortization benefits don't
> really kick in until after 3 blocks.

Ah I see, I can see if 64b is closer to the change for eg 1k.

>> If you're worried about it, I'd just keep the read/write and add the
>> iter variants on the side.
>
> Not a chance of that. These functions are already finicky as-is; I would
> really hate to have to duplicate all of these paths.

Then I'd say there are only two options:

- Add a helper that provides splice for something that only has
read/write set.

- Just accept that we're 3% slower reading from /dev/urandom for now,
and maybe 1-2% for small reads. Can't really imagine this being a huge
issue, how many high throughput /dev/urandom read situations exist in
the real world?

--
Jens Axboe