[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YTtu1V1c1emiYII9@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 14:42:29 +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 Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 07:57:49AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> It was just a quick hack, might very well be too eager to go through
> those motions. But pondering this instead of sleeping, we don't need to
> copy all of iov_iter in order to restore the state, and we can use the
> same advance after restoring. So something like this may be more
> palatable. Caveat - again untested, and I haven't tested the performance
> impact of this at all.
You actually can cut it down even more - nr_segs + iov remains constant
all along, so you could get away with just 3 words here... I would be
surprised if extra memory traffic had shown up - it's well within the
noise from register spills, (un)inlining, etc. We are talking about
3 (or 4, with your variant) extra words on one stack frame (and that'd
be further offset by removal of ->truncated); I'd still like to see the
profiling data, but concerns about extra memory traffic due to that
are, IMO, misplaced.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists