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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190611144102.8848-1-hch@lst.de> <20190611144102.8848-17-hch@lst.de>
 <1560300464.nijubslu3h.astroid@bobo.none>
In-Reply-To: <1560300464.nijubslu3h.astroid@bobo.none>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 11 Jun 2019 15:09:24 -1000
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjSo+TzkvYnAqrp=eFgzzc058DhSMTPr4-2quZTbGLfnw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/16] mm: pass get_user_pages_fast iterator arguments in
 a structure
To:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc:     Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@mips.com>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.sourceforge.jp>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@oracle.com>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        Linux-sh list <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:55 PM Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What does this do for performance? I've found this pattern can be
> bad for store aliasing detection.

I wouldn't expect it to be noticeable, and the lack of argument
reloading etc should make up for it. Plus inlining makes it a
non-issue when that happens.

But I guess we could also at least look at using "restrict", if that
ends up helping. Unlike the completely bogus type-based aliasing rules
(that we disable because I think the C people were on some bad bad
drugs when they came up with them), restricted pointers are a real
thing that makes sense.

That said, we haven't traditionally used it, and I don't know how much
it helps gcc. Maybe gcc ignores it entirely? S

               Linus