Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 15 Jun 2018 18:25:39 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Lazy FPU restoration / moving kernel_fpu_end() to context
 switch
In-Reply-To: <CAHmME9pBqGhCjdwx64GxYTKWiMkDNY3v2gnVL_Xm2q=3guOAsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1806151815080.1582@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <CAHmME9pBqGhCjdwx64GxYTKWiMkDNY3v2gnVL_Xm2q=3guOAsQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> In a loop this looks like:
> 
> for (thing) {
>   kernel_fpu_begin();
>   encrypt(thing);
>   kernel_fpu_end();
> }
> 
> This is obviously very bad, because begin() and end() are slow, so
> WireGuard does the obvious:
> 
> kernel_fpu_begin();
> for (thing)
>   encrypt(thing);
> kernel_fpu_end();
> 
> This is fine and well, and the crypto API I'm working on will enable

It might be fine crypto performance wise, but it's a total nightmare
latency wise because kernel_fpu_begin() disables preemption. We've seen
latencies in the larger millisecond range due to processing large data sets
with kernel FPU.

If you want to go there then we really need a better approach which allows
kernel FPU usage in preemptible context and in case of preemption a way to
stash the preempted FPU context and restore it when the task gets scheduled
in again. Just using the existing FPU stuff and moving the loops inside the
begin/end section and keeping preemption disabled for arbitrary time spans
is not going to fly.

Thanks,

	tglx