netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH V3 1/5] vhost: generalize adding used elem

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 linux-cve-announce 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:   Mon, 7 Jan 2019 15:00:17 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V3 1/5] vhost: generalize adding used elem


On 2019/1/5 上午8:33, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 04:29:34PM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 08:46:52PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>> Use one generic vhost_copy_to_user() instead of two dedicated
>>> accessor. This will simplify the conversion to fine grain
>>> accessors. About 2% improvement of PPS were seen during vitio-user
>>> txonly test.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
>> I don't hve a problem with this patch but do you have
>> any idea how come removing what's supposed to be
>> an optimization speeds things up?
> With SMAP, the 2x vhost_put_user() will also mean an extra STAC/CLAC pair,
> which is probably slower than the overhead of CALL+RET to whatever flavor
> of copy_user_generic() gets used.  CALL+RET is really the only overhead
> since all variants of copy_user_generic() unroll accesses smaller than
> 64 bytes, e.g. on a 64-bit system, __copy_to_user() will write all 8
> bytes in a single MOV.
>
> Removing the special casing also eliminates a few hundred bytes of code
> as well as the need for hardware to predict count==1 vs. count>1.
>

Yes, I don't measure, but STAC/CALC is pretty expensive when we are do 
very small copies based on the result of nosmap PPS.

Thanks