[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOFY-A21tjC5dWwM0W0aXHij40kKj2JNo5Nq4X8mBZZdKwr+AA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:03:54 -0700
From: Arjun Roy <arjunroy@...gle.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
paulmck <paulmck@...nel.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] rseq: optimise rseq_get_rseq_cs() and clear_rseq_cs()
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 2:19 PM David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
>
> > If we're special-casing 64-bit architectures anyways - unrolling the
> > 32B copy_from_user() for struct rseq_cs appears to be roughly 5-10%
> > savings on x86-64 when I measured it (well, in a microbenchmark, not
> > in rseq_get_rseq_cs() directly). Perhaps that could be an additional
> > avenue for improvement here.
>
> The killer is usually 'user copy hardening'.
> It significantly slows down sendmsg() and recvmsg().
> I've got measurable performance improvements by
> using __copy_from_user() when the buffer since has
> already been checked - but isn't a compile-time constant.
>
> There is also scope for using _get_user() when reading
> iovec[] (instead of copy_from_user()) and doing all the
> bound checks (etc) in the loop.
> That gives a measurable improvement for writev("/dev/null").
> I must sort those patches out again.
>
> David
>
In this case I mean replacing copy_from_user(rseq_cs, urseq_cs,
sizeof(*rseq_cs)) with 4 (x8B=32 total) unsafe_get_user() (wrapped in
user_read_access_begin/end()) which I think would just bypass user
copy hardening (as far as I can tell).
-Arjun
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists