[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YTrM130S32ymVhXT@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 03:11:19 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] iov_iter fixes
On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 09:05:13PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 9/9/21 8:57 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 03:19:56PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >
> >> Not sure how we'd do that, outside of stupid tricks like copy the
> >> iov_iter before we pass it down. But that's obviously not going to be
> >> very efficient. Hence we're left with having some way to reset/reexpand,
> >> even in the presence of someone having done truncate on it.
> >
> > "Obviously" why, exactly? It's not that large a structure; it's not
> > the optimal variant, but I'd like to see profiling data before assuming
> > that it'll cause noticable slowdowns.
>
> It's 48 bytes, and we have to do it upfront. That means we'd be doing it
> for _all_ requests, not just when we need to retry. As an example, current
> benchmarks are at ~4M read requests per core. That'd add ~200MB/sec of
> memory traffic just doing this copy.
Umm... How much of that will be handled by cache?
> Besides, I think that's moot as there's a better way.
I hope so, but I'm afraid that "let's reload from userland on e.g. short
reads" is not better - there's a plenty of interesting corner cases you
need to handle with that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists