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:   Sun, 14 Jun 2020 18:51:43 +0530
From:   afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc:     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>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] lib: copy_{from,to}_user using gup & kmap_atomic()
Message-ID: <20200614132143.GA599@afzalpc>
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>
 <CAK8P3a2g6a=V4BmPAOM0vNYUfJqm_aZziQhCxfF8MT_fbHMMLg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a2g6a=V4BmPAOM0vNYUfJqm_aZziQhCxfF8MT_fbHMMLg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.3 (2018-01-21)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 10:45:33PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> 4% boot time increase sounds like a lot, especially if that is only for
> copy_from_user/copy_to_user. In the end it really depends on how well
> get_user()/put_user() and small copies can be optimized in the end.

i mentioned the worst case(happened only once), normally it was in
the range 2-3%

> From the numbers you
> measured, it seems the beaglebone currently needs an extra ~6?s or
> 3?s per copy_to/from_user() call with your patch, depending on what
> your benchmark was (MB/s for just reading or writing vs MB/s for
> copying from one file to another through a user space buffer).

It is MB/s for copying one file to another via user space buffer, i.e.
the value coreutils 'dd' shows w/ status=progress (here it was busybox
'dd', so instead it was enabling a compile time option)

> but if you want to test what the overhead is, you could try changing
> /dev/zero (or a different chardev like it) to use a series of
> put_user(0, u32uptr++) in place of whatever it has, and then replace the
> 'str' instruction with dummy writes to ttbr0 using the value it already
> has, like:
> 
>       mcr     p15, 0, %0, c2, c0, 0  /* set_ttbr0() */
>       isb  /* prevent speculative access to kernel table */
>       str    %1, [%2],0 /* write 32 bit to user space */
>       mcr     p15, 0, %0, c2, c0, 0  /* set_ttbr0() */
>       isb  /* prevent speculative access to user table */

> It would be interesting to compare it to the overhead of a
> get_user_page_fast() based implementation.

i have to relocate & be on quarantine couple of weeks, so i will
temporarily stop here, otherwise might end up in roadside.

Reading feedbacks from everyone, some of it i could grasp only bits &
pieces, familiarizing more w/ mm & vfs would help me add value better
to the goal/discussion. Linus Walleij, if you wish to explore things,
feel free, right now don't know how my connectivity would be for next
3 weeks.

Regards
afzal