linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: mvneta: Convert to be 64 bits compatible

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <21520380.oWTKcrq8DS@wuerfel>
Date:   Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:00:36 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:     Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com>,
        Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>,
        Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: mvneta: Convert to be 64 bits compatible

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 4:37:36 PM CET Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> solB (a SW shadow cookie) perhaps gives a better performance: in hot path,
> such as mvneta_rx(), the driver accesses buf_cookie and buf_phys_addr of
> rx_desc which is allocated by dma_alloc_coherent, it's noncacheable if the
> device isn't cache-coherent. I didn't measure the performance difference,
> because in fact we take solA as well internally. From your experience,
> can the performance gain deserve the complex code?

Yes, a read from uncached memory is fairly slow, so if you have a chance
to avoid that it will probably help. When adding complexity to the code,
it probably makes sense to take a runtime profile anyway quantify how
much it gains.

On machines that have cache-coherent DMA, accessing the descriptor
should be fine, as you already have to load the entire cache line
to read the status field.

Looking at this snippet:

                rx_status = rx_desc->status;
                rx_bytes = rx_desc->data_size - (ETH_FCS_LEN + MVNETA_MH_SIZE);
                data = (unsigned char *)rx_desc->buf_cookie;
                phys_addr = rx_desc->buf_phys_addr;
                pool_id = MVNETA_RX_GET_BM_POOL_ID(rx_desc);
                bm_pool = &pp->bm_priv->bm_pools[pool_id];

                if (!mvneta_rxq_desc_is_first_last(rx_status) ||
                    (rx_status & MVNETA_RXD_ERR_SUMMARY)) {
err_drop_frame_ret_pool:
                        /* Return the buffer to the pool */
                        mvneta_bm_pool_put_bp(pp->bm_priv, bm_pool,
                                              rx_desc->buf_phys_addr);
err_drop_frame:


I think there is more room for optimizing if you start: you read
the status field twice (the second one in MVNETA_RX_GET_BM_POOL_ID)
and you can cache the buf_phys_addr along with the virtual address
once you add that.

Generally speaking, I'd recommend using READ_ONCE()/WRITE_ONCE()
to access the descriptor fields, to ensure the compiler doesn't
add extra references as well as to annotate the expensive
operations.

	Arnd