[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y7P+MjPNA6Tg8JBr@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2023 10:06:42 +0000
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Hui Tang <tanghui20@...wei.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [bug-report] possible performance problem in ret_to_user_from_irq
On Mon, Dec 26, 2022 at 04:45:20PM +0800, Hui Tang wrote:
> hi folks.
>
> I found a performance problem which is introduced by commit
> 32d59773da38 ("arm: add support for TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL").
> After the commit, any bit in the range of 0..15 will cause
> do_work_pending() to be invoked. More frequent do_work_pending()
> invoked possible result in worse performance.
>
> Some of the tests I've doneļ¼ as follows:
> lmbench test base with patch
> ./lat_ctx -P 1 -s 0 2 7.3167 11.04
> ./lat_ctx -P 1 -s 16 2 8.0467 14.5367
> ./lat_ctx -P 1 -s 64 2 7.8667 11.43
> ./lat_ctx -P 1 -s 16 16 16.47 18.3667
> ./lat_pipe -P 1 28.1671 44.7904
>
> libMicro-0.4.1 test base with patch
> ./cascade_cond -E -C 200\
> -L -S -W -N "c_cond_1" -I 100 286.3333 358
>
> When I adjust test bit, the performance problem gone.
> - movs r1, r1, lsl #16
> + ldr r2, =#_TIF_WORK_MASK
> + tst r1, r2
>
> Does anyone have a good suggestion for this problem?
> should just test _TIF_WORK_MASK, as before?
I think it should be fine - but I would suggest re-organising the
TIF definitions so that those TIF bits that shouldn't trigger
do_work_pending are not in the first 16 bits.
Note that all four bits in _TIF_SYSCALL_WORK need to stay within
an 8-bit even-bit-aligned range, so the value is suitable for an
immediate assembly constant.
I'd suggest moving the TIF definitions for 20 to 19, and 4..7 to
20..23, and then 8 to 4.
Thanks.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists