netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: avoid unneeded atomic operation in ip*_append

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 04 Apr 2018 11:54:18 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     pabeni@...hat.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, edumazet@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: avoid unneeded atomic operation in
 ip*_append_data()

From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Date: Wed,  4 Apr 2018 14:30:01 +0200

> After commit 694aba690de0 ("ipv4: factorize sk_wmem_alloc updates
> done by __ip_append_data()") and commit 1f4c6eb24029 ("ipv6:
> factorize sk_wmem_alloc updates done by __ip6_append_data()"),
> when transmitting sub MTU datagram, an addtional, unneeded atomic
> operation is performed in ip*_append_data() to update wmem_alloc:
> in the above condition the delta is 0.
> 
> The above cause small but measurable performance regression in UDP
> xmit tput test with packet size below MTU.
> 
> This change avoids such overhead updating wmem_alloc only if
> wmem_alloc_delta is non zero.
> 
> The error path is left intentionally unmodified: it's a slow path
> and simplicity is preferred to performances.
> 
> Fixes: 694aba690de0 ("ipv4: factorize sk_wmem_alloc updates done by __ip_append_data()")
> Fixes: 1f4c6eb24029 ("ipv6: factorize sk_wmem_alloc updates done by __ip6_append_data()")
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
 ...
> -	refcount_add(wmem_alloc_delta, &sk->sk_wmem_alloc);
> +	if (wmem_alloc_delta)
> +		refcount_add(wmem_alloc_delta, &sk->sk_wmem_alloc);
 ...
> -	refcount_add(wmem_alloc_delta, &sk->sk_wmem_alloc);
> +	if (wmem_alloc_delta)
> +		refcount_add(wmem_alloc_delta, &sk->sk_wmem_alloc);

This is simple enough, so applied.

But I wonder if atomic_{add,sub} and refcount_{add,sub}() should just check
for zero inline, just like the {set,clear}_bit() implementations avoid the
atomic operation if the bit already has the desired value.