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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sun, 10 Jan 2021 23:40:42 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
        Eric Sandeen <esandeen@...hat.com>,
        Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Wang Jianchao <jianchao.wan9@...il.com>,
        "Kani, Toshi" <toshi.kani@....com>,
        "Norton, Scott J" <scott.norton@....com>,
        "Tadakamadla, Rajesh" <rajesh.tadakamadla@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] nvfs: a filesystem for persistent memory

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 04:14:55PM -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote:

> That's a good point. I split nvfs_rw_iter to separate functions 
> nvfs_read_iter and nvfs_write_iter - and inlined nvfs_rw_iter_locked into 
> both of them. It improved performance by 1.3%.
> 
> > Not that it had been more useful on the write side, really,
> > but that's another story (nvfs_write_pages() handling of
> > copyin is... interesting).  Let's figure out what's going
> > on with the read overhead first...
> > 
> > lib/iov_iter.c primitives certainly could use massage for
> > better code generation, but let's find out how much of the
> > PITA is due to those and how much comes from you fighing
> > the damn thing instead of using it sanely...
> 
> The results are:
> 
> read:                                           6.744s
> read_iter:                                      7.417s
> read_iter - separate read and write path:       7.321s
> Al's read_iter:                                 7.182s
> Al's read_iter with _copy_to_iter:              7.181s

So
	* overhead of hardening stuff is noise here
	* switching to more straightforward ->read_iter() cuts
the overhead by about 1/3.

	Interesting...  I wonder how much of that is spent in
iterate_and_advance() glue inside copy_to_iter() here.  There's
certainly quite a bit of optimizations possible in those
primitives and your usecase makes a decent test for that...

	Could you profile that and see where is it spending
the time, on instruction level?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists