[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d78cb4be-48a9-a7c5-d9d1-d04d2a02b4c6@csgroup.eu>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 17:17:34 +0200
From: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] powerpc: remove address space overrides using
set_fs()
Le 02/09/2020 à 14:36, Christoph Hellwig a écrit :
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 08:15:12AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>> - return 0;
>>> - return (size == 0 || size - 1 <= seg.seg - addr);
>>> + if (addr >= TASK_SIZE_MAX)
>>> + return false;
>>> + if (size == 0)
>>> + return false;
>>
>> __access_ok() was returning true when size == 0 up to now. Any reason to
>> return false now ?
>
> No, this is accidental and broken. Can you re-run your benchmark with
> this fixed?
>
With this fix, I get
root@...ippro:~# time dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null count=1M
1048576+0 records in
1048576+0 records out
536870912 bytes (512.0MB) copied, 6.776327 seconds, 75.6MB/s
real 0m 6.78s
user 0m 1.64s
sys 0m 5.13s
That's still far from the 91.7MB/s I get with 5.9-rc2, but better than
the 65.8MB/s I got yesterday with your series. Still some way to go thought.
Christophe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists