Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sat, 13 Jun 2020 13:51:26 +0100
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] lib: copy_{from,to}_user using gup & kmap_atomic()
Message-ID: <20200613125126.GE23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <cover.1591885760.git.afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com>
 <9e1de19f35e2d5e1d115c9ec3b7c3284b4a4e077.1591885760.git.afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a1XUJHC0kG_Qwh4D4AoxTgCL5ggHd=45yNSmzaYWLUWXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200612135538.GA13399@afzalpc>
 <CAK8P3a25ffh_2Y1xKDbkL2xU9nLpGbEq7j6xHdODEwUtavgdwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200613120432.GA5319@afzalpc>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200613120432.GA5319@afzalpc>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 05:34:32PM +0530, afzal mohammed wrote:

> Observation is that max. pages reaching copy_{from,to}_user() is 2,
> observed maximum of n (number of bytes) being 1 page size. i think C
> library cuts any size read, write to page size (if it exceeds) &
> invokes the system call. Max. pages reaching 2, happens when 'n'
> crosses page boundary, this has been observed w/ small size request
> as well w/ ones of exact page size (but not page aligned).
> 
> Even w/ dd of various size >4K, never is the number of pages required
> to be mapped going greater than 2 (even w/ 'dd' 'bs=1M')
> 
> i have a worry (don't know whether it is an unnecessary one): even
> if we improve performance w/ large copy sizes, it might end up in a
> sluggishness w.r.t user experience due to most (hence a high amount)
> of user copy calls being few bytes & there the penalty being higher.
> And benchmark would not be able to detect anything abnormal since
> usercopy are being tested on large sizes.
> 
> Quickly comparing boot-time on Beagle Bone White, boot time increases
> by only 4%, perhaps this worry is irrelevant, but just thought will
> put it across.

Do stat(2) of the same tmpfs file in a loop (on tmpfs, to eliminate
the filesystem playing silly buggers).  And I wouldn't expect anything
good there...