netdev - Re: [PATCH] usbnet: jump to rx_cleanup case instead of calling skb_queue

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]

Message-ID: <Y57VkLKetDsbUUjC@kroah.com>
Date:   Sun, 18 Dec 2022 09:55:44 +0100
From:   Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To:     Leesoo Ahn <lsahn@...eel.net>
Cc:     Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usbnet: jump to rx_cleanup case instead of calling
 skb_queue_tail

On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 01:18:51AM +0900, Leesoo Ahn wrote:
> The current source pushes skb into dev->done queue by calling
> skb_queue_tail() and then, call skb_dequeue() to pop for rx_cleanup state
> to free urb and skb next in usbnet_bh().
> It wastes CPU resource with extra instructions. Instead, use return values
> jumping to rx_cleanup case directly to free them. Therefore calling
> skb_queue_tail() and skb_dequeue() is not necessary.
> 
> The follows are just showing difference between calling skb_queue_tail()
> and using return values jumping to rx_cleanup state directly in usbnet_bh()
> in Arm64 instructions with perf tool.
> 
> ----------- calling skb_queue_tail() -----------
>        │     if (!(dev->driver_info->flags & FLAG_RX_ASSEMBLE))
>   7.58 │248:   ldr     x0, [x20, #16]
>   2.46 │24c:   ldr     w0, [x0, #8]
>   1.64 │250: ↑ tbnz    w0, #14, 16c
>        │     dev->net->stats.rx_errors++;
>   0.57 │254:   ldr     x1, [x20, #184]
>   1.64 │258:   ldr     x0, [x1, #336]
>   2.65 │25c:   add     x0, x0, #0x1
>        │260:   str     x0, [x1, #336]
>        │     skb_queue_tail(&dev->done, skb);
>   0.38 │264:   mov     x1, x19
>        │268:   mov     x0, x21
>   2.27 │26c: → bl      skb_queue_tail
>   0.57 │270: ↑ b       44    // branch to call skb_dequeue()
> 
> ----------- jumping to rx_cleanup state -----------
>        │     if (!(dev->driver_info->flags & FLAG_RX_ASSEMBLE))
>   1.69 │25c:   ldr     x0, [x21, #16]
>   4.78 │260:   ldr     w0, [x0, #8]
>   3.28 │264: ↑ tbnz    w0, #14, e4    // jump to 'rx_cleanup' state
>        │     dev->net->stats.rx_errors++;
>   0.09 │268:   ldr     x1, [x21, #184]
>   2.72 │26c:   ldr     x0, [x1, #336]
>   3.37 │270:   add     x0, x0, #0x1
>   0.09 │274:   str     x0, [x1, #336]
>   0.66 │278: ↑ b       e4    // branch to 'rx_cleanup' state

Interesting, but does this even really matter given the slow speed of
the USB hardware?

> Signed-off-by: Leesoo Ahn <lsahn@...eel.net>
> ---
>  drivers/net/usb/usbnet.c | 11 ++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/usb/usbnet.c b/drivers/net/usb/usbnet.c
> index 64a9a80b2309..924392a37297 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/usb/usbnet.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/usb/usbnet.c
> @@ -555,7 +555,7 @@ static int rx_submit (struct usbnet *dev, struct urb *urb, gfp_t flags)
>  
>  /*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
>  
> -static inline void rx_process (struct usbnet *dev, struct sk_buff *skb)
> +static inline int rx_process(struct usbnet *dev, struct sk_buff *skb)
>  {
>  	if (dev->driver_info->rx_fixup &&
>  	    !dev->driver_info->rx_fixup (dev, skb)) {
> @@ -576,11 +576,11 @@ static inline void rx_process (struct usbnet *dev, struct sk_buff *skb)
>  		netif_dbg(dev, rx_err, dev->net, "rx length %d\n", skb->len);
>  	} else {
>  		usbnet_skb_return(dev, skb);
> -		return;
> +		return 0;
>  	}
>  
>  done:
> -	skb_queue_tail(&dev->done, skb);
> +	return -1;

Don't make up error numbers, this makes it look like this failed, not
succeeded.  And if this failed, give it a real error value.

thanks,

greg k-h