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;
Subject: Re: [git pull] iov_iter fixes
To:     Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <CAHk-=wiacKV4Gh-MYjteU0LwNBSGpWrK-Ov25HdqB1ewinrFPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5971af96-78b7-8304-3e25-00dc2da3c538@kernel.dk>
 <YTrJsrXPbu1jXKDZ@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
 <b8786a7e-5616-ce83-c2f2-53a4754bf5a4@kernel.dk>
 <YTrM130S32ymVhXT@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
 <9ae5f07f-f4c5-69eb-bcb1-8bcbc15cbd09@kernel.dk>
 <YTrQuvqvJHd9IObe@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
 <f02eae7c-f636-c057-4140-2e688393f79d@kernel.dk>
 <YTrSqvkaWWn61Mzi@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
 <9855f69b-e67e-f7d9-88b8-8941666ab02f@kernel.dk>
 <YTtu1V1c1emiYII9@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <75caf6d6-26d4-7146-c497-ed89b713d878@kernel.dk>
Date:   Fri, 10 Sep 2021 09:08:02 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <YTtu1V1c1emiYII9@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 9/10/21 8:42 AM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 07:57:49AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 
>> It was just a quick hack, might very well be too eager to go through
>> those motions. But pondering this instead of sleeping, we don't need to
>> copy all of iov_iter in order to restore the state, and we can use the
>> same advance after restoring. So something like this may be more
>> palatable. Caveat - again untested, and I haven't tested the performance
>> impact of this at all.
> 
> You actually can cut it down even more - nr_segs + iov remains constant
> all along, so you could get away with just 3 words here...  I would be

Mmm, the iov pointer remains constant? Maybe I'm missing your point, but
the various advance functions are quite happy to increment iter->iov or
iter->bvec, so we need to restore them. From a quick look, looks like
iter->nr_segs is modified for advancing too.

What am I missing?

> surprised if extra memory traffic had shown up - it's well within the
> noise from register spills, (un)inlining, etc.  We are talking about
> 3 (or 4, with your variant) extra words on one stack frame (and that'd
> be further offset by removal of ->truncated); I'd still like to see the
> profiling data, but concerns about extra memory traffic due to that
> are, IMO, misplaced.

See other email that was just sent out, it is measurable but pretty
minimal. But that's also down to about 1/3rd of copying the whole
thing blindly, so definitely a better case.

-- 
Jens Axboe