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;
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        stable@vger.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.14 162/205] fs/epoll: drop ovflist branch prediction
Date:   Mon, 11 Feb 2019 15:19:20 +0100
Message-Id: <20190211141838.951381692@linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190211141827.214852402@linuxfoundation.org>
References: <20190211141827.214852402@linuxfoundation.org>
User-Agent: quilt/0.65
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

4.14-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

[ Upstream commit 76699a67f3041ff4c7af6d6ee9be2bfbf1ffb671 ]

The ep->ovflist is a secondary ready-list to temporarily store events
that might occur when doing sproc without holding the ep->wq.lock.  This
accounts for every time we check for ready events and also send events
back to userspace; both callbacks, particularly the latter because of
copy_to_user, can account for a non-trivial time.

As such, the unlikely() check to see if the pointer is being used, seems
both misleading and sub-optimal.  In fact, we go to an awful lot of
trouble to sync both lists, and populating the ovflist is far from an
uncommon scenario.

For example, profiling a concurrent epoll_wait(2) benchmark, with
CONFIG_PROFILE_ANNOTATED_BRANCHES shows that for a two threads a 33%
incorrect rate was seen; and when incrementally increasing the number of
epoll instances (which is used, for example for multiple queuing load
balancing models), up to a 90% incorrect rate was seen.

Similarly, by deleting the prediction, 3% throughput boost was seen
across incremental threads.

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181108051006.18751-4-dave@stgolabs.net
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
---
 fs/eventpoll.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/eventpoll.c b/fs/eventpoll.c
index 2fabd19cdeea..c291bf61afb9 100644
--- a/fs/eventpoll.c
+++ b/fs/eventpoll.c
@@ -1167,7 +1167,7 @@ static int ep_poll_callback(wait_queue_entry_t *wait, unsigned mode, int sync, v
 	 * semantics). All the events that happen during that period of time are
 	 * chained in ep->ovflist and requeued later on.
 	 */
-	if (unlikely(ep->ovflist != EP_UNACTIVE_PTR)) {
+	if (ep->ovflist != EP_UNACTIVE_PTR) {
 		if (epi->next == EP_UNACTIVE_PTR) {
 			epi->next = ep->ovflist;
 			ep->ovflist = epi;
-- 
2.19.1